Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Primary Schools (Pupil Costs)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): Net recurrent expenditure per pupil in primary schools in Wales was £571 in 1980–81. This figure excludes expenditure on school meals, milk and transport.

Mr. Knox: Is that the highest amount ever spent in money and in real terms?

Mr. Roberts: The expenditure is broadly comparable to the level reached in the previous year. It is significantly higher than in 1978–79. Expenditure plans envisage a rising level of expenditure per pupil in Welsh schools. However, we must bear in mind that there are falling school rolls and diseconomies of scale. Despite that trend, the standards in our primary schools are very high.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Rather than listen to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), who always asks the same question, will the Minister direct his attention to what is in the inspectorate's report on the effects of falling rolls and the diseconomies of scale caused by this trend in both rural and urban areas? Will he ensure that the resources are substantially increased, particularly for books and other forms of audio-visual equipment for primary schools?

Mr. Roberts: I shall continue to answer my hon. Friend's questions. If they bring answers that are unpalatable to the hon. Gentleman, that is not my fault. The diseconomies of scale are a problem. Our plans for 1982–83 will allow expenditure on books and equipment in Welsh schools to be restored to 1978–79 levels.

Local Authority Expenditure

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales, following the recent meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, Wales, what changes he requires in local authority spending patterns in Wales during the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the likely spending above his Department's ceiling by local authorities in 1982–83; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Local authority returns of expenditure and rates show a total budgeted expenditure excess for the 1982–83 financial year of £57 million over the settlement provision.
I have asked all authorities to submit revised budgets to me by the middle of July and have not taken any decision on withholding.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the chaos that is caused to local authority budgets by having to rethink a year's budget when the year is only a month or six weeks old? In assessing the overspend, can he give an assurance that none of the additional expenditure on road programmes arising from the phenomenal snow this winter, which has hung over into the current financial year, will be taken into account when penalising counties for the expenditure levels that they are now incurring?

Mr. Edwards: The local authorities had adequate warning that if their expenditure went above the figures that we had laid down. I would have to ask them to re-examine it and that I might have to withhold. They had plenty of warning. Indeed, the Welsh counties made substantial provision in their budgets, on the assumption that there would be withholding.
I have told the local authorities that I shall take a number of factors into account. Although in 1981–82 the special expenditure on the snow emergency has been excluded, I noted what they had to say to me on Friday about expenditure which runs into the following year. I said that I would take note of that with all the other factors that I put to them.

Mr. Thomas: Does the Secretary of State accept that the proposals for close ending and holdback for Welsh authorities in the paper produced by the Welsh Office for the consultative committee are completely at variance with the statement made to the Standing Committee that considered the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill when this issue was discussed? Is not the Welsh Office now attempting to introduce in Wales a scheme which has not been introduced in England? Are not Welsh authorities being further penalised as a result?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should not confuse close ending and withholding. The undertakings given in Committee applied only to England.

Mr. Thomas: Why did the Minister not say so?

Mr. Edwards: When my hon. Friend made that statement, he referred specifically to England. The position is wholly different in Wales. We have not had to go down this route before because of the co-operation of the Welsh local authorities. I hope that Welsh local authorities will continue to co-operate so that I shall not have to withhold. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that I should treat Welsh local authorities in exactly the same way as English authorities.

Mr. Roy Hughes: What contingency arrangements will the Government make to assist local authorities to meet the increased cost of wage applications following the abrogation of the so-called Luxembourg compromise by our Common Market partners? Will that not increase the cost of food to the people of Wales by £1·50p a week for an average family? Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the effect that this will have on the competitiveness——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked several questions.

Mr. Edwards: The anticipated increase in the cost of living arising from the agricultural settlement is less than ¼ per cent. in a full year, which will be rather less than that which we used to suffer every month under the Labour Government. Welsh local authorities have made a provision in their budgets that appears to be excessive when considered against the actual outturn of wages and costs.

Sir Raymond Gower: Welsh local authorities were faced with great problems due to savage and intense weather conditions during the winter. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the help that his Department is giving under the present formula is satisfactory in all the circumstances?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will want to welcome back my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) after his illness. My hon. Friend knows that we made special provision at the time to meet the emergency. In making our assessment of any excess expenditure for 1981–82, that provision will be excluded.

Mr. Alec Jones: The Opposition are glad to see the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) back in his place, looking both fitter and slimmer as a consequence of his absence. So-called overspending in England was about 7·7 per cent., and the Minister for Housing and Construction gave an assurance in Committee that the differential holdback would be no greater than that announced in December. In Wales, according to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), there was an overspend of only 5·1 per cent. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless we get an assurance from him of the sort given by the Minister for Housing and Construction we shall be led to the view that the Under-Secretary of State, through his silence, mislead local authorities, the Committee and the House?

Mr. Edwards: The answer is simple. English local authorities suffered a differential holdback, and no such holdback has been applied to Welsh authorities. The circumstances are completely different. When I saw the local authority representatives on Friday I told them that I would take into account whatever the outcome might be in England. I gave them an assurance that I would take careful note of the final holdback in England before taking any decision that would have an effect on Welsh local authorities.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures of the number of people unemployed in Wales, Mid-Glamorgan and Aberdare; and what percentage of the working population are unemployed in these areas.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 15 April 1982 unemployment in Wales totalled 171,349, in Mid-Glamorgan 32,815 and in Aberdare 3,866, giving unemployment rates of 16·1 per cent., 17 per cent. and 17·8 per cent., respectively.

Mr. Evans: These are record figures for Wales. Is it not a fact that Wales has the highest regional

unemployment in Great Britain? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider urgently the need to restore special development area status for the areas that lost that assistance following the Government's review? Does he realise that at the Lady Windsor Lodge pit there were over 450 applications for 15 vacancies? When will the Government create an upturn in the economy that will provide jobs for young people?

Mr. Edwards: Unquestionably, these unemployment figure are too high. I am glad to say that they have not risen as fast as the figures for England. I am also glad to say that April was the third consecutive month when vacancies increased. Unfilled vacancies have also been increasing. April was the fourth consecutive month when unfilled vacancies increased. That is another indication that we are moving out of the worst of the recession.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the growing misgiving of the Welsh TUC, the Welsh Labour Party has reaffirmed its intention of taking Britain out of the EEC, thus threatening to kick in the groin the Welsh economic recovery, which is only now just beginning?

Mr. Edwards: Yes. I noted that, by that decision over the weekend, the Welsh Labour Party voted for increased unemployment in Wales.

Mr. Abse: Is the Secretary of State aware—he is often completely uninformed about the steel industry in Wales—that, to add to the problems of unemployment, there is a serious threat to Panteg steelworks, at which about 700 men are employed? What talks has the right hon. Gentleman had with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation? Will he draw to the chairman's attention the fact that a firm assurance was given to the Select Committee that there would be no cutback and no closure at Panteg? The apparent threat is causing great anxiety. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about the matter?

Mr. Edwards: The corporate plan is currently under review. With other Ministers, I shall shortly be meeting the chairman again to consider it. No assurance was given that there would be no further redundancies in the steel industry at individual plants or as a whole. The chairman has repeatedly made it clear that it will be necessary to continue to improve competitiveness in the way that it has been so strikingly improved over the past year or two.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) refers to Panteg, he refers to an absolute commitment that was given in 1980 by the previous chairman of the BSC to maintain Panteg? When he discusses the new corporate plan with the chairman, I hope that he will ensure that Panteg is not sold down the river. If that were to happen, 700 jobs would be lost. Despite his fine words earlier, 2,030 redundancies have taken place in Wales each month this year. Will he admit that the sell-out at Luxembourg last week was a sell-out of essential British, and equally essential Welsh, interests?

Mr. Edwards: The future of the steel industry in Wales depends on its being competitive. I have seen no immediate proposals of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and the right hon.


Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones). However, those are matters for the chairman. I shall be discussing the corporate plan with him in the near future.
Events in Europe last week led to a profoundly important disagreement about the way in which business in the European Community should be conducted. The real disaster for Wales would be to pursue the Opposition's policy of withdrawing from the Community.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the steady fall in the inflation rate in the United Kingdom should enhance and provide great opportunities for Welsh industrial recovery?

Mr. Edwards: It is of extreme importance that inflation is continuing to fall and has fallen to 9·4 per cent. That and improved competitiveness hold out the best chance for a recovery of our industrial prospects.

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the most recent month's average percentage of unemployment in the area covered by the Development Board for Rural Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 15 April 1982 the average rate of unemployment was 13·4 per cent.

Mr. Hooson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in the review of regional aid that is now taking place, full weight will be given to the fact that the DBRW area of Wales and the HIDB area of Scotland have the same levels of unemployment, and that the HIDB area is not threatened substantially with the downgrading of status?

Mr. Edwards: That factor will, of course, be taken into account. As my hon. Friend is aware, there are wide variations within the area. Indeed, unemployment in the Brecon travel-to-work area, in his constituency, is only 8·8 per cent. He also knows that this week we are to meet him and representatives of his local authorities and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) to discuss these matters. We shall take all these factors into account.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State assure us that he personally will take a stand with the Secretary of State for Industry to ensure that the interests of rural Wales are fully protected in the Cabinet and that he will not surrender on this issue?

Mr. Edwards: The decisions on the review that we undertook to carry out are being dealt with collectively, and I shall be one of the Ministers who will take those decisions. I shall, of course, ensure that all the important factors for mid-Wales, and indeed for other parts of the United Kingdom, are taken properly into account.

Mr. Donald Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what, at the latest available date, are the percentage figures for male unemployment in Swansea, West Glamorgan and Wales, respectively; and what were the comparative figures for May 1979.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 15 April 1982 the male unemployment rate for the Swansea travel-to-work area was 19·5 per cent., for West Glamorgan 18 per cent. and for Wales 18·8 per cent. Rates for May 1979 were 8·3 per cent., 7·4 per cent. and 8·3 per cent., respectively.

Mr. Anderson: That is an increase of 2½ per cent. in two years. Is the Secretary of State aware that, among the few jobs advertised in the Swansea jobcentre for

unemployed steel workers and others, one was for a clown, uniform supplied, to travel and make a fool of himself around the rest of Great Britain? Does the Secretary of State realise the humilation felt in my area in such a job offer as a result of the Government's policy? When will it stop?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is trivialising the issue. A variety of employment is offered in jobcentres. I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman wisher. I should have thought that, in coming to the House to discuss important issues, the hon. Gentleman would have a more serious point to make than that.

Mr. Coleman: Will the Secretary of State tell us how many of the number that he gave in his original answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) were young male unemployed? Can he estimate what youth unemployment in West Glamorgan is likely to be when the summer school term ends?

Mr. Edwards: I can give no forcast about the likely future levels. Consecutive Governments have refused to make forcasts of that kind. Clearly, youth unemployment is worrying. That is why we have launched a major programme—the largest ever—to deal with the problem.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister seen the article in British Business, based on research done by Mr. Galguly of the Department of Industry, which showed that the number of company births in Wales is one of the lowest in the United Kingdom and that the number of company deaths in Wales is one of the highest in the United Kingdom? What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Edwards: No, I have not seen the article. However, I have seen the figures that are available in the Department, and they show that the amount of factory space allocated in Wales last year was an all-time record, that in the first quarter of this year the figures are nearly double the figures for the first quarter of last year. that the number of inquiries to the small business unit was at an all-time record last year and is substantially up this year, and the number of new firms coming to Wales has been exceptionally high during the past three years.

Water Charges

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he has received from ratepayers in Newport protesting at the level of water charges; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Eleven, including two from the hon. Member.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that, from the large number of petitions, there is quite an uproar in Newport over this issue, and that it is particularly understandable in view of the increase of 2,700 per cent. in those charges since 1960, with no rebate system obtaining? The issue is further compounded by the fact that Newport, the third largest town in Wales, has never had any representation on the Welsh water authority. We have now received a further smack in the eye, because Gwent has no representation on the new revamped board. Does the Minister appreciate that he and his right hon. Friend are storing up a lot of trouble for themselves?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should know that the new authority, which has been set up by my right hon.


Friend, is not intended to be directly representational. The hon. Gentleman's comparison of charges pre-1974 and thereafter is grossly misleading because, as no doubt he knows, the pre-1974 water rate was subsidised from the general rates, and the pre-1974 sewerage element of the general rate attracted rate support grant, whereas the present charges are unsubsidised and reflect the true cost of providing those services.

Several Hon. Members: rose ——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a constituency question. The key words are "in Newport".

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many unemployed persons there are at present in Wales; how many jobs are expected to be created in the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In April 1982 unemployment in Wales totalled 171,349. It is not possible to estimate the number of jobs likely to arise in both the public and private sectors.

Mr. Jones: Does the Secretary of State recollect saying in a previous answer to me that approximately 13,000 jobs were in the pipeline? Would that not be a terrifying gap between the estimated new jobs and the number of people out of work? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that male unemployment in Flint is now edging again towards 40 per cent. Has he read recent newspaper reports that hopes of the Nissan project coming to the United Kingdom may now be fading because trade unions in Nissan are against it?

Mr. Edwards: I am afraid that I have no further information to give the hon. Gentleman about the Nissan project. He is understandably persistent in asking questions about the project at every Welsh Question Time. The position is exactly the same as it was when he last asked a question on the subject.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is now disquieting evidence suggesting that the effective measures taken by the Government to combat unemployment throughout Wales are proving less effective in North-East Wales? Will he give special consideration to the problems that arise in that area as a result of steel closures?

Mr. Edwards: I am not sure that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A number of major new projects have come into the area, as I saw when I recently went round the Deeside industrial estate. In the last week or two there has been the important announcement by Gould UK Ltd. about expansion in Wrexham. As my hon. Friend knows, the area benefits from the highest level of financial assistance and from a number of parts of the regional and special employment packages that are not available elsewhere. He also knows that the area has exceptional road communications and probably an unequalled record of good industrial relations. Therefore, the longer-term prospects should be pretty good.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the letter that the Welsh Development Agency sent to me in reply to a question that I asked him on 22 April 1982? Having replied to a question about the development of new units in Wales, can he explain why we have lost 13,000 jobs in WDA units, why we have 348 factories tenanted, 323 vacant and 137 still awaiting tenants?

Mr. Edwards: It is obvious that tenants of WDA factories will be affected by general economic factors, just as tenants of factories elsewhere in the United Kingdom are affected by them. It is not surprising that, during the period, jobs have been lost in existing factories. A considerable number of WDA factories are now vacant because we have carried out the largest programme of factory building ever undertaken in the Principality, and we have succeeded in getting those factories occupied at record levels. As I said in answer to an earlier question, last year's figures were an all-time record. In the first quarter of this year the number of allocations is very nearly double what it was last year.

Mr. Alec Jones: Why is it that the Secretary of State can tell us the number of Government factories, the area of factory space, the number of inquiries and some details of the new firms coming into the area, but cannot give the House full details of all the jobs created or in the pipeline through organisations such as the WDA and the DBRW? It is no good the Secretary of State hiding behind the argument of disproportionate cost when he can give selective figures but not the true figures. Why does he not give us the full story for Wales instead of half?

Mr. Edwards: In a recent letter I gave the right hon. Gentleman the total figures and a long list of the principal factories. If we are to consider every project for which financial assistance has been given and every unit, substantial costs will be involved. The WDA informed me that answering the question from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), to which he has just referred, and another question from the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), took 100 man-hours.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is democracy.

Mr. Edwards: I believe that the WDA should use its time to create new jobs in Wales, not to provide unnecessary information.

Mr. Rowlands: How many man-hours does it take to produce the right hon. Gentleman's selective answers?

Mr. D. E. Thomas: How much does it cost to produce the speeches, the drivel, that the right hon. Gentleman turns out in this bloody House?

Mr. John Morris: Can the Secretary of State provide a simple——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I hear someone swearing? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] If so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman who made the observation will stand up and withdraw it.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I most certainly withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. John Morris: Can the Secretary of State provide a simple balance sheet of the total number of jobs lost in Wales since he took office and the number that have been created through his agencies?

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the unemployment figures. He also knows that the jobs that will be created in the many projects that have been set up will come only after several years, as was the case when he answered such questions. I have just told him in a letter that the developments that we have carried out in the Llanwern and Port Talbot areas following the steel closures should provide up to 6,800 new jobs, 4,000 of which will be in the two travel-to-work areas. That is a significant attempt to deal with the problem.

Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the reply that the Secretary of State gave to me about costs and the estimate of jobs in the pipeline, may I say that two months ago the right hon. Gentleman gave me——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's argument is not with me. It is not a point of order.

A494 (Mold Bypass)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now review the priority given to the A494 Mold bypass.

Mr. Michael Roberts: The main thrust of the trunk road improvement programme continues to be improvement of the strategic links, especially the A55. Good progress is being made and I hope that, when they have been substantially completed, schemes such as the Mold bypass can be quickly fitted into the programme. Preparatory work towards that end is going ahead as quickly as resources permit.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Is he aware that the success of the Government's road building programme in North Wales has thrown into high relief the unsuitability of the road pattern in and around Mold? May I give him advance warning that from now on I shall press for an early start on the Mold bypass, as I pressed for work on the A55?

Mr. Roberts: I recognise the desirability of the scheme and the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to it. It is estimated that it will relieve the town of 50 per cent. of trunk road traffic.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister insist that, when the bypass is built, a high proportion of the labour is locally based? May I remind him of the discontent in my constituency over the building of current bypass schemes because the local labour content is not high enough?

Mr. Roberts: It is not possible to insist that every contractor uses local labour, because that would enormously increase the costs and reduce the number of roads that we can build. However, we enourage contractors to use local labour and, in the main in North Wales, they are satisfied with it.

Spina Bifida

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if, in view of the high incidence of spina bifida in Wales, he will draw to the attention of the medical profession and expectant mothers the tests carried out by Dr. Smithell at the Welsh national school of medicine establishing that the taking of an appropritate vitamin cocktail can prevent many cases of spina bifida.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Initial results of the research are encouraging. Further careful research is necessary to demonstrate the benefit of this form of vitamin supplementation before it can be recommended as a standard part of antenatal care.

Mr. Abse: Since it could not possibly do any harm, and since the giving of advice on the matter could do much good in minimising the tragedies in Glamorgan and Gwent, is that not a tardy reply? Surely if, as is believed, there is possibility of relieving the incidence of spina bifida in Wales, it should be the duty of the Secretary of State to make sure that the full facts are brought to the attention of the medical profession and expectant mothers?

Mr. Roberts: Multi-vitamin preparations are already available on prescription, should the patient's doctor consider them desirable. However, further to that, the Medical Research Council will start a multi-centre study in the autumn, including the professorial unit of obstetrics at the Welsh national school of medicine. The Government are aware of the potential value of that treatment and we shall do everything in our powers to promote it.

Health Service

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what effect current industrial action is having on the Health Service in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The action is causing general disruption of hospital and clinical services. It is interfering with patient care and is potentially damaging to those waiting for treatment.

Mr. Grist: If the disgraceful state of affairs continues, what effect will it have on waiting lists? What will be the likely result for Health Service employees if their pay demand is met in full?

Mr. Roberts: Since the Government have been in office we have reduced waiting lists, but such action will undoubtedly lengthen them. We have increased the number of those employed by the National Health Service in Wales. We have taken on about 2,600 nurses and 3,000 additional employees in all. The problem with the 12 per cent. wage demand is that it must be reconciled with the demands for patient services. We believe that the Government's offer is realistic in relation to the demand for increased patient care and the resources that the country can afford.

Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister also consider with some compassion the other side of the equation, which is that we have been paying far too little to our Health Service workers for a long time? Has he been as shocked as I have to see the average take-home pay of ancillary workers in the NHS? As we have been getting those people on the cheap, will he reconsider the offer that has been made?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows that nurses received increases in 1979, 1980 and 1981. They had the 22 per cent. Clegg commission increase and they have had a reduction from 40 hours a week to 37½ hours a week, which is worth 6·5 per cent. The total wage bill in the Health Service has increased by 85 per cent. during the past three years.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Minister not accept that the dispute has been caused by the Government's


intransigence? As a Welsh Office Minister, will the hon. Gentleman involve himself in such issues instead of taking the line adopted over the years, that negotiations with public sector workers are not a matter for the Department?

Mr. Roberts: Primarily, these are matters for the Whitley council. I do not accept that hon. Gentleman's charge of Government intransigence. The Secretary of State for Social Services is well aware of the situation.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that nurses and medical staff have managed to keep hospitals going during the dispute by grossly overworking themselves? As the Labour Government made only a half-hearted attempt to maintain reasonable pay levels in the National Health Service, is it not shabby of the Labour Party to give all-out backing to industrial action that is aimed direct at the patient?

Mr. Roberts: I agree with practically everything that my hon. Friend has said. Of course, the Labour Party is the first to criticise any possible inadequacies in the National Health Service. We must reconcile the demand for increased patient care and services with that for increased pay. We have increased the numbers employed in the National Health Service with a view to improving services, but we cannot give such pay increases without calling for redundancies at the same time.

Mr. Coleman: Does the Minister not realise that the free collective bargaining that the Conservative Party upheld at the general election, but which has now been negated by this miserly increase for Health Service workers, is destroying the morale of the service? How can Whitley councils pursue meaningful negotiations when they are restricted by the amount of money that the Government make available to meet the claims?

Mr. Roberts: The Government have increased the amount of money spent on the National Health Service in Wales from £398 million in 1978–79 to £743 million in the current year. I cannot think of anything more calculated to demoralise the National Health Service than the action that is now taking place, with the apparent support of the Opposition.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Have not these moderate and responsible people been driven to desperate measures by the Government's measly offer? Last Saturday morning a man who had come to see me handed me his pay ticket showing the figures £64·22 gross and £51·40 net. How is he to meet the increased food costs resulting from the Common Market's action?

Mr. Roberts: I cannot conceivably relate that point to the Common Market. However, I reiterate that we must reconcile the levels of pay in the National Health Service with the demand for increased and improved patient care.

Nurses

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the nursing profession; and when he intends to meet them next.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I last met national representatives of the nursing profession in February.
I take the opportunity during my regular visits to hospitals and other Health Service establishments of meeting local representatives of all groups of staff in the National Health Service.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that the Government are taxing the patience and professionalism of nurses? Judging from conversations that I have had with nurses at the Prince Charles hospital and at other hospitals in my area, the grievance is not so much about this year's pay increase, as about the fact that the Government have failed to devise a system of comparable pay awards to avoid industrial disputes. The Government have put the nurses in an invidious position because of the threat of strike action in the Health Service.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The nurses have been offered an increase of 6·4 per cent. and are being balloted on that. The ballot closes on 28 May. We have been anxious to devise a long-term strategy for agreement with the nurses. Indeed, my hon. and learned the Friend the Minister for Health is working along those lines.

Mr. Alec Jones: If it is necessary to reconcile levels of pay and other expenditure in the National Health Service, why is it not necessary to reconcile pay levels in the judiciary? Why does a judge need 21 per cent., while National Health Service employees need 4 per cent. and nurses 6·4 per cent? If the Minister and the Government were genuinely interested in maintaining a National Health Service and in improving patient care they would give that loyal, hard-working and devoted service a fair deal.

Mr. Roberts: National Health Service employees are being offered a fair and realistic deal. As regards the Top Salaries Review Body, the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that pay has been held below the levels judged appropriate in 1980. Therefore, the two groups are not in any way comparable.

Mr. Grist: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Royal College of Nursing wants to reach an agreement with the Government on a new form of pay for nurses but that the actions of the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees are getting in the way?

Mr. Roberts: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely correct, because negotiations are still proceeding with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health. We hope that a long-term method of settling nurses' wages will be evolved.

Mr. John Morris: How is a fair deal being offered?

Mr. Roberts: It is fair, because, as I have said, we must reconcile the demand for increased and better services with the demand for increased pay. Throughout our period of office we have increased the amount of money available, in real terms, to the National Health Service. I repeat that the wage bill for the National Health Service has increased by no less than 85 per cent. in the past three years. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands that the demand for improved services has also increased.

Mr. Wigley: Is it not an apalling reflection on the Government's priorities that they cannot find money for a reasonable wage settlement without threatening to cut jobs and without threatening a longer waiting list for the thousands of people who are awaiting hospital services yet they can find £1,000 million at the drop of a hat to play war games in the South Atlantic?

Mr. Roberts: I hope that I have not threatened redundancies. I said that redundancies were not threatened, as they were in many other industries. For example, in the private sector many people have had to take a cut instead of an increase in wages. However, we have increased the number of employees in the National Health Service. The increase proposed is worth £21 million.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Information (Use)

Mr. Murphy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his recent discussion forum to promote a more effective use of information.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon): On 13 May I held a discussion forum with representatives of some 40 leading organisations whose members make intensive use of information. My object was to give them a chance to talk about their needs and the pattern of information services they would like to see developing to meet them.

Mr. Murphy: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on setting up the forum? Given the increasing value of information technology, does my right hon. Friend agree that it will become even more important for him to liaise closely with those who use information technology and the relevant Government Departments?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful to him for his remarks. We shall publish the forum's report as soon as possible and I hope that it will lead to further useful debate.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister look into the quality of the verbiage of arts information and, in particular, will he gear it towards potential rather than existing audiences?

Mr. Channon: That is a slightly different question, but I will study what the hon. Gentleman has said to see whether I can do anything to help.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is a pity that he will not be able to invite to such forums the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) in his former official capacity? Will my right hon. Friend express regret, as I do, that the hon. Gentleman's eccentric views on other subjects have deprived the arts of his services?

Mr. Channon: I am sure that we are all deeply depressed at the hon. Gentleman's departure from the arts scene, but I suspect that, nevertheless, we shall hear his contributions from time to time.

Mr. Faulds: indicated assent.

The Arts

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the amount of support from all sources for the arts in the outer London boroughs.

Mr. Channon: I am never satisfied, but the situation differs a good deal from one borough to another. If my hon. Friend has a specific point I should willingly consider it.

Mr. Chapman: In the debate and controversy that surrounds the distribution of the total arts grant, the argument usually centres on how much London gets and how much the provinces get. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in the outer London boroughs believe that they are completely bypassed? Although, quite properly, substantial tranches of arts grant go to the national institutions such as the Royal Opera House. the National Theatre and the English National Opera. knowing the excellent work that is done by the arts centres in the outer London boroughs—not least Barnet arts centre—will my right hon. Friend keep a friendly watch on the situation?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I think that my hon. Friend has made a good point. The distincition is between central London rather than London as a whole and the rest of the country. I accept that some areas of outer London need a great deal of help in the arts. I shall bear my hon. Friend's views in mind.

Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an exciting plan to establish a significant theatre complex in Harrow? Will the Government give support and encouragement to that plan?

Mr. Channon: I suspect that that is a matter for the Arts Council, rather than the Government. If my hon. Friend writes to me I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Arts Council about future funding of the arts.

Mr. Channon: I shall be seeing the new chairman of the Arts Council later today and will, of course, be having regular discussions with him on matters concerning the arts.

Mr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on the recent settlement on grants for the arts? Will he impress upon the new chairman of the Arts Council that it is more than a question of public expenditure for the arts and that he should give his full weight to sponsorship, which many hon. Members see as the way forward in the arts?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I shall certainly do that. There is widespread support in the House for the concept of sponsorship of the arts as a welcome and growing supplement to public support.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that no Government can be thought of as fulfilling their full responsibilities towards the arts if, as the Government have done, they fund the arts through the Arts Council at a real monetary value that is less than the current rate of inflation? Will the right hon. Gentleman ponder that fact—and the fact that it is a minor thing to lose a marginal job in a Shadow Ministry when one happens to be right on a major issue of the day?

Mr. Channon: I do not think that I should be drawn into the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, except to say that on personal


grounds I much regret his disappearance from the arts scene. However, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is essential, at a time of economy in public expenditure, that all areas, including the arts, should bear their share. In the circumsances, what the Government have been able to provide for the Arts Council has been very good.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend, during his conversation later today, draw the attention of the new chairman to the exciting new Welsh sculpture trust, which is arranging for sculptures to be placed in some of the most delightful parkland in South Wales? If there is no financial backing by way of sponsorship from industry, will the Government consider giving assistance within the existing budget? If that is impossible, will the Government consider what other measures can be taken to assist the project under the chairmanship of Judge Bruce Fletcher-Griffiths?

Mr. Channon: What my hon. Friend says certainly sounds an attractive and interesting idea. It will be helpful if he will write to me with details of the project.

Mr. Flannery: When the Minister discusses the funding of the arts with the chairman of the Arts Council, will he take into account the report of the Select Committee, particularly on VAT? Does the Minister realise that the anomalies are such that in some cases great orchestras pay more in VAT than the subsidy they receive from the Government? Is the Minister aware that this is having an adverse effect on the number of seats taken up at concerts and in the live theatre?

Mr. Channon: Naturally I am studying the Select Committee's report on this topic and I hope to reply in the not-too-distant future. This situation has persisted under both Governments in the recent past, and I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Museums (Rayner Report)

Mr. Waller: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received the Rayner report on the Victoria and Albert museum and the Science museum.

Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir. I have just received the report, am carefully studying it, and I hope to make an announcement later this week.

Mr. Waller: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that these two great London museums, which are among our great national assets, would in many ways be better administered as trusteeship bodies rather than be responsible direct to a Government Department?

Mr. Channon: That point of view is widely shared, but it is clearly a matter of great consequence for the future of the museums. That aspect is clearly covered by the report. I shall naturally want to study the report and take into account what my hon. Friend said before making an announcement later this week.

Mr. Faulds: What success has the right hon. Gentleman had in convincing the staffs of the Victoria and Albert and the Science Museums that there are positive advantages in becoming members of staff of trustee-run museums?

Mr. Channon: It would have been quite inappropriate for me to make any efforts to persuade them of that or any other course, since the Government have only this week received the report. No decisions have yet been made. It would be wrong of me to inform the House whether the report recommends in favour of that proposal or against it.

The Arts

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what statistics he collects about expenditure by local authorities on the arts.

Mr. Channon: Each local authority supplies details of its expenditure on local services to the Government. My direct interest is in libraries and museums only; local authority spending on other aspects of recreation and the arts is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales. Statistics of local expenditure in these various fields are published annually by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the large discrepancies in those statistics between one authority and another? Will he liaise with his right hon. Friends—the Secretary of State for Wales in particular—to encourage local authorities to make greater contributions towards the arts, libraries and other forms of the arts?

Mr. Channon: I certainly would not be against that, provided the local authorities concerned kept within the Goverment's overall spending figures. I shall willingly discuss this with my right hon. Friends, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the various tables include a wide variety of matters and it is extremely difficult to single out the arts from other recreational matters, such as swimming baths.

Mr. Whitehead: Can the Minister say how many local authorities have had to reduce expenditure on museum services, for which he is responsible?

Mr. Channon: None that I have noticed, but I am glad to say that local authority spending on the arts is holding up very well. Am Ito congratulate the hon. Gentleman on assuming a new portfolio? If so, it will be a delight to see him.

Crafts Council

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in obtaining a Royal charter for the Crafts Council.

Mr. Channon: I am happy to say that Her Majesty the Queen has now approved the grant of a charter to the Crafts Council.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is extremely good news? Is he further aware of the importance of craft centres in providing a focus for economic activity and the growth of the tourist industry in rural areas, particularly in Wales? Does he agree that craft centres often form the nucleus of a growing economic centre in a remote area?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I agree that it is very good news for the Crafts Council. It shows how important its work


is becoming. I also agree about the importance of craft workshops in rural areas. I hope to visit North Wales soon and perhaps I shall have the opportunity of seeing one. My

hon. Friend will also note that part of the grant to the Arts Council is passed to the Welsh Arts Council to promote the work of artist-craftsmen in Wales.

Falkland Islands

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): Seven weeks ago when Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated that the Falkland Islands remained British territory, that no aggression and no invasion could alter that simple fact, and that it was the Government's objective to see that the islanders were freed from occupation.
On the night of Thursday 20 May, Her Majesty's forces re-established a secure base on the Falkland Islands and the Union Flag is today flying over the settlement of San Carlos in East Falkland—where it will remain. The whole House will have been delighted to see the expressions of delight on the faces of the islanders and their children—published widely yesterday.
The amphibious landing was the culmination of a long period of planning by the force commander and of preparation by the Royal Marine commandos, members of the Parachute Regiment and supporting arms during their six weeks voyage into the South Atlantic. Whilst they sailed south, the Government worked unremittingly to persuade Argentina to withdraw peacefully and honour-ably from the Falkland Islands. But the Government met only with Argentine intransigence.
Last week it became clear that the only possible course left open to us was the repossession of the Falkland Islands by military means. In this the Government have been encouraged—as I think has the country as a whole—that Her Majesty's Opposition and the other main political parties in the House have supported us. Certainly I believe that our Service men have been greatly encouraged by the support that they have received from right hon. and hon. Members of this House.
I will not go over all the details of the amphibious landing; the approach by the task force under the cover of darkness, widespread raids on Argentine military targets, the entry into Falkland Sound and the disembarkment into landing crafts leading to assault in the San Carlos area, but I think I can say that it was an exploit which captured the imagination of our people.
Argentine forces did not interfere to any significant extent with the landing itself. The amphibious ships involved in the first stages of the operation were able to withdraw without incident to safer waters to the east of the Falkland Islands, and I must here pay tribute to the men and women of the merchant marine for their heroism and skill in these dangerous operations; their role is vital.
The landing itself was complemented by attacks in other parts of the Falklands including the airfield at Goose Green and bombardment of military installations south of Port Stanley. Carrier-based RAF Harriers launched attacks against Argentine defences at Port Stanley airfield. These operations were an essential part of the overall plan. I deeply regret, however, that in the course of these operations three Royal Marines were killed when their Gazelle helicopters were shot down and that one RAF Harrier pilot is missing. And as we have announced, 21 men were tragically lost when a Royal Navy Sea King ditched in the sea shortly before the operations began.
To protect the landing operation, the Royal Navy maintained a gun-line of destroyers and frigates in the Falkland Sound. Other warships provided close protection for our amphibious forces; overhead, Sea Harriers from

our carriers provided continuous combat air patrols. The waves of Argentine air attacks had to run the gauntlet of these air defences. The Sea Harriers shot down eight of their aircraft, and total Argentine losses that day are estimated at 14 Mirages and Sky Hawks, two Pucaras and four helicopters. These losses represent more than a third of their combat aircraft taking part that day.
During these continuous air attacks the Royal Navy fought with great skill and bravery. Nevertheless, those Argentine aircraft which had penetrated our air defence screen inflicted damage on five of our ships. Of these, the type 21 frigate HMS "Ardent" was severely damaged, but despite the efforts of her crew to control the damage she sank in the course of Friday night. Twenty-two of her crew died and 17 were injured. The injured are now receiving full medical attention in hospital ships of the fleet.
Since that action the task force has been reinforced by the arrival of more, highly capable, warships, more than compensating for those damaged or lost in action so far.
The following day, Saturday, saw a lull in the fighting. Although the weather was good, the Argentine air force launched only one attack by two Skyhawks on our ships, which was not pressed home. Yesterday the Argentine air force resumed its attacks on ships of the task force in San Carlos Water. The aircraft were engaged by missiles from ships, by shore-based Rapier batteries and by the combat air patrols of Sea Harriers. Six Mirage aircraft and one Skyhawk are known to have been shot down—one aircraft more than was first announced—and there have been unconfirmed reports of a further one Mirage and two Skyhawks also shot down. Yesterday's events involved the loss of two-thirds of the Argentine aircraft taking part.
In the meantime, action to make the blockade effective has continued. Sea Harriers from the task force yesterday destroyed two Argentine helicopters and caused serious damage to another. Task force action also resulted in the beaching of a ship used by the Argentines to ferry troops and ammunition around the islands. With the loss of re-supply ships and six helicopters, the Argentine commander has lost all but a very limited capability to supply his forces and move them around the islands.
I regret to confirm that in yesterday's action the frigate HMS "Antelope" suffered severe damage. Our latest information—and this based on preliminary reports—is that one of her ship's company was killed and seven others were wounded. I must also inform the House, with great regret, of the loss of one of our Sea Harriers last night. This aircraft met with an accident shortly after launching from one of our carriers and the pilot was killed. This accident was not as a result of Argentine action, and the cause has yet to be established. Next of kin have been informed.
The intensive fighting of the last few days has produced tragic loss of life on our side, and the House will join me in conveying the deep sympathy of the whole nation to the relatives and friends of those killed and injured.
We all feel deeply too for the constant concern and worry of the families and friends of our Service men. They are showing great patience and understanding in very difficult circumstances.
Names of casualties will not be released until the next of kin have been informed, although to counter the false propaganda coming out of Argentina we have had to give some general information on the progress of military action as soon as it is confirmed.
Our forces are now established on the Falkland Islands with all the necessary supplies, together with their heavy equipment and air defence missiles. They have mobility with a large number of helicopters at their disposal—and their spirits are high. But I must emphasise that our men still face formidable problems in difficult terrain with a hostile climate. We must expect fresh attacks upon them, and there can be no question of pressing the force commander to move forward prematurely—the judgment about the next tactical moves must be his—and his alone.
But, one thing is certain: the days of the occupying Argentine garrison are numbered and it will not be long before the Falkland Islanders once again have their democratic rights restored.

Mr. John Silkin: The Opposition are very glad that a number of our fellow citizens in the Falkland Islands have now been liberated. We associate ourselves with everything that the Secretary of State for Defence has said about the men of the Services, and we send our sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who have been killed or injured.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the men and women of the Merchant Navy. They have played a tremendous part in this operation, as we always knew they would. We hope that the Government will send a message to the National Union of Seamen, which has responded so magnificently at this time.
This is not the time for questions on the individual handling of the task force; nor, indeed, is it the time to go very deeply into the reasons why the islands were invaded in the first place. The moment for that may well come. However, the two questions that I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman seem to be of some importance at the present time.
First, about a week ago the right hon. Gentleman said on the radio:
Even if we are forced to take the military option the process of negotiations will not end".
Today, he said:
Last week it became clear that the only possible course left open to us was the repossession of the Falkland Islands by military means".
I agree that that is so at this moment, but will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm that the door to negotiations does not now remain shut?
Secondly, a disturbing item of news on the tape concerns the possible supply of arms from South Africa to Argentina. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information about that, but I hope that he will at least assure the House that the matter will be investigated and that in due course a full statement will be made.

Mr. Nott: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the "liberation"—I use his word—of some of the Falkland Islanders and for his remarks about our Service men and the Merchant Marine. At the moment we must concentrate on the military aim of repossessing the Falkland Islands. Any question of talks about the long-term future of the Falkland Islanders must be left aside for the moment. The crucial thing is that we should find out the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. We can do that properly when we have repossessed the islands.
I confirm what I said the other day, that eventually some long-term accommodation will be needed between the Falkland Islands and other countries in that area. That

must be right. I shall check on the supply of arms from South Africa, as we always do when we hear such reports. I have no knowledge of that.

Dr. David Owen: Will the Secretary of State convey the congratulations of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Service men and the men of the Merchant Navy for a remarkable operation and wish them every success in the formidable task that still must be done?
In associating myself and my colleagues with the tributes to the relatives and friends of those who have lost their lives or who have been injured, I hope that the House will understand if I mention particularly HMS "Ardent", which is a Devonport ship. I hope that the frigate, which I believe has still not sunk, can be saved.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government's intentions remain as they have always been, namely to use force in this context under the United Nations charter and to accept the dual obligation of self-defence and the pursuance, wherever possible, of a negotiated settlement?

Mr. Nott: I shall convey the right hon. Gentleman's message. HMS "Antelope" is also a Devonport-based ship. I cannot give any further details of her at the moment. She is not in a good condition. She is seriously damaged.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, we have taken our action in the Falkland Islands under article 51 of the United Nations charter. He will know that when we put forward our proposals last week we referred to article 73 of the United Nations charter, which recognises the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of territories are paramount. It is on that basis that we are prepared to discuss the future of the Falkland Islands, when we are aware of the views of the Falkland Islanders. It is wrong to talk in terms of negotiations until we have repossessed the Falkland Islands. We are there and must go forward to achieve our military aim.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow questions on the statement until 4 o'clock, according to the digital clocks.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that however much he may be pressed, and however much it may be the will of the House to proceed with speed to recapture the whole of the Falkland Islands, no pressure will be brought to bear on the military commanders in order to make political decisions override proper military judgments in carrying out the campaign? Will my right hon. Friend resist any further pressure that might arise on that score?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend accept that I believe that everyone in the House was proud of what the British forces did, from the top right through to a NAAFI manager who manned a machine gun? Everyone made us proud that we were British.

Mr. Nott: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I repeat that no pressure will be brought to bear on the military commanders in the way that my hon. Friend fears. It is for them to make the tactical decisions about the next move.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: While all this is going on, why is the Foreign Secretary still permitted to continue to use language that is plainly incompatible with our continued possession of the islands in the long term?

Mr. Nott: I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made any statements that would imply that.

Dr. John Gilbert: We read that the instruction to the task force commander is to proceed with as much speed as possible with the other objective of minimising casualties. Subject to his tactical discretion, can the Secretary of State say which of these two objectives the task force commander has been told is supreme? Is it to move ahead with the maximum speed, or is it to minimise casualties?

Mr. Nott: We want the task force commander to move forward as rapidly as is reasonably possible. I do not think that I or any right hon. and hon. Member need to give any advice to the task force commander about minimising casualties. I am sure that that will be his overriding aim.

Sir Frederick Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that until the Argentine troops have been removed from the Falkland Islands, either by surrender or by diplomatic terms through their Government, which is unlikely, the best way to minimise casualties on both sides is to ensure that overwhelming force, wherever, we possess it, is brought to bear against the enemy? It is overwhelming force that brings about defeat earlier and ensures that there are fewer casualties.

Mr. Nott: I would confidently leave it to the task force commander to decide the manner in which he fights this battle. I can be sure that he will use as much force as is necessary to achieve his aims.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Will the Secretary of State accept that, as a former Merchant Navy seaman, I am grateful for his complimentary remarks about the Merchant Marine? Will he further accept that the bellicose and belligerent statements emanating from the extremely anti-British Government in Dublin are not representative of the Irish people, who do not see Britain as the aggressor in this conflict?

Mr. Nott: I am gratified to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments. I share with him great admiration for the Merchant Marine. Several of our merchant ships were brought right in to San Carlos water and were in great danger for a period. I am glad to say that most of them are now in greater safety. I share with the hon. Gentleman great admiration for what the Merchant Marine has achieved in this affair. I also once again welcome what the hon. Gentleman said on the other topic.

Mr. Frank Allaun: To stop the growing casualties, will the Secretary of State now ask the War Cabinet to consider a ceasefire or at least a truce by both sides for 48 hours? Would that not also give a chance for United Nations negotiations now rather than later, when they are bound to come?

Mr. Nott: The casualties have arisen as a direct result of the illegal aggression by Argentina and her failure to comply with resolution 502—a mandatory resolution—of the United Nations. There is no question of a truce. We

are now established firmly on the island. We shall go through with the necessary means of repossessing the islands as a whole.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while it would be wrong to differentiate between the achievements of one element of the task force and another, all observers of what has happened over the last week have been astounded by the achievement of the Sea Harrier pilots and their supporting staff and believe that that achievement against overwhelming odds once again represents what can be done by a few against the many?

Mr. Nott: I agree with my hon. Friend. The performance of both Sea and RAF Harriers in the contest has been remarkable. They have been extremely successful. The attrition of the Argentine air force has been huge as set against the small number of Harriers that we have lost. The skill of our pilots has been immense and the Harrier has proved itself to be an exceptional aircraft.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anyone with an inkling of the operational environment of the South Atlantic will be moved to sorrow at the loss of our Service men who have fallen victim to it and feel deep pride at the achievement of our Service men and members of the National Union of Seamen who have met its severest challenges and gone on to execute a brilliant and humane landing? Will he say something about any further Etendard platform Exocet attacks which may have been mounted against the fleet since the loss of HMS "Sheffield"?

Mr. Nott: As the hon. Gentleman says, the whole House shares a feeling of great pride for our Service men and the Merchant Marine. I do not wish to be drawn into saying which Argentine aircraft have been involved in action. That would be unwise. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Liberal Party wishes to express its admiration for the courage and skill of our forces and the Merchant Marine in this enterprise? We also wish to extend our sympathy to the Merchant Marine. In that connection, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on an article in The Guardian, which suggested that the bereaved would not have full pension rights because we are not technically at war? Will he also comment on the status of Merchant Navy mariners who die?

Mr. Nott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing those wishes on behalf of the Liberal Party. I have not seen the article in The Guardian to which he refers. It sounds wrong. I cannot believe that it is right. Nevertheless, I shall of course check on the matter and let him know. I sounds wrong to me.

Mr. Anthony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of our constituents are enormously proud of the achievements of our armed forces? Is he further aware that they reserve their anger for the Fascist junta and the, fortunately, small number of people throughout the country who make utterances against the junta but refuse to support the actions against it?

Mr. Nott: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he said about our Service men.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is Washington saying to the Government about the continued shooting? Is it true that the Americans have asked for the shooting to stop?

Mr. Nott: I do not need to comment on communications from Washington. Washington is perfectly clear that the shooting would stop immediately if the Argentines had agreed, during the preceding seven weeks, to obey the mandatory resolution of the Security Council and withdrawn their forces.

Mr. Alan Clark: I pay tribute to the skill and bravery of the men on the two Plymouth ships, HMS "Ardent" and HMS "Antelope", on which such heavy casualties have been suffered. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all decorations for gallantry for which the men would be eligible in a state of war will be available in present circumstances? Does he agree that an operation such as this, which has drawn the professional admiration of Services all over the world, deserves a campaign medal of its own for which both the Service men and civilians taking part will be eligible?

Mr. Nott: I assure my hon. Friend that awards for gallantry for the present campaign will be made in the normal way. A campaign medal will be considered. We will almost certainly agree to such a medal for the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that yesterday I had the unfortunate experience of visiting two families in my constituency—the Hughes family of Pwllheli and the Roberts family of Llanberis—who had lost sons in the preceding 48 hours? Is he aware that the reaction in such areas is to question whether the end justifies the bloodshed? In the light of that, will he reconsider his earlier remark that the so-called exploits have caught the imagination of the people?

Mr. Nott: I agree that, for a family, nothing can replace a lost son. In general terms, however, the British people support what the task force has achieved and understand why it was necessary to send it.

Sir Frederic Bennett: My right hon. Friend said that he will not be deflected by pressures from any source to complete our declared aims. Will he confirm that that also applies to the considerations of our EEC partners when, with their varying degrees of support, they shortly decide whether to renew sanctions?

Mr. Nott: My hon. Friend will learn shortly that EEC Foreign Ministers have agreed, informally and subject to the decision of the Council, to renew sanctions on the same basis as those which were renewed at Luxembourg last week.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are two ways to repossess the Islands? Does he agree that the first is a military solution which leads to unconditional surrender, and the second is a military solution, combined with a political solution, which could lead to a ceasefire sooner than the right hon. Gentleman implies? Does he agree that it would be better to opt for the second? If he agrees, will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and ask her to leave on the table the five articles about which she talked last Thursday?

Mr. Nott: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings on the matter. However, the proposals that we advanced last week in good faith to avoid further fighting cannot any longer be relevant. We are now firmly established on the islands. The position is new. There is no way in which the points to which the hon. Gentleman refers can remain relevant.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people in the House and the country believe that he has expressed fully the views of the country about our pride in the achievements of our task force and our sorrow at the losses that have been sustained?
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind a point which affected his constituency not long ago—the Penlee lifeboat disaster? Does he agree that it seems likely that there 'will be a vast upsurge of people wanting to contribute to some form of fund? Does he agree that that would be better coordinated from the centre, through acknowledged bodies such as the Royal British Legion or SSAFA, rather than have appeals springing up in diverse areas for the benefit of isolated groups of people? Does he agree that our Service men, nor merely in the Falklands, but in Northern Ireland, should be dealt with equally and that all contributions should go through a general fund and not through isolated ones?

Mr. Nott: My hon. Friend has made an interesting and important point, which I shall consider, in the form of- an appeal that funds should be given to the British Legion and other existing forces' charities. I take note of what my hon. Friend has said and I shall consider it.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Does the Secretary of State agree that because of our support for the Armed Services and the value that we put on the Service men's lives, many of us are opposed to their being used in present circumstances? Is it now Government policy to recapture the Falklands, regardless of the loss of young British and Argentine life?

Mr. Nott: Yes, it is the Government's intention to repossess the Falkland Islands and to return them to full British Administration.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to remind the world and, I am sorry to say, some Opposition Members, that the Union Jack flying again on the Falkland Islands is not merely the symbol of our sovereignty but is the front-line banner for international freedom, justice and democracy?

Mr. Nott: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are doing more than repossessing the Falkland Islands, which are British territory, peopled by British people. We are standing for a principle which is vital for the future peace of the world.

Mr. Bidwell: As we often hear conflicting stories of the state of morale of the Argentine forces on the islands, particularly the conscript element, has the Minister anything to impart to the House today on that subject, as it will greatly determine the amount of blood that is shed?

Mr. Nott: I do not believe that the morale of the Argentine forces on the island is high. They are clearly suffering from a shortage of supplies and, in some cases, a shortage of food. It would be wrong to assume from that,


however, that the Argentine forces will not fight—and fight hard. I emphasise that we may still have a very difficult fight on our hands.

British Rail

4 pm

Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis in British railways".
On Friday the executive committee of the National Union of Railwaymen decided that it would decide on a form of industrial action unless by 7 June Britsh Rail withdraws its proposals to close a number of railway workshops. The proposal to close the workshops is seen by the unions in the industry and by a large number of other people concerned with the running of the railways as indicative of the fact that a massive rundown of railway services is about to commence.
The significance of the proposal goes far beyond its serious effect upon the communities in which the workshops are situated, and the factors that led to the decision of British Rail Engineering Ltd. cannot be held to be matters merely between the railway unions and British Rail management, because they were factors determined by the Government.
It was the Government's decision to refuse to allow British Rail to begin the investment programme, which is necessary to maintain our rail network as much as to provide work for British Rail workshops, and their proposal to make a public service obligation payment to British Rail for the current year less than that paid in the last year that lay behind the decision by British Rail.
It would be wrong for Parliament to rise for the Whitsun Recess and to return after the date on which a decision is taken that a strike should commence in British Rail resulting from factors which are matters of great importance to the House, on which we would wish to question the Secretary of State for Transport and on which the House should express a view. I therefore submit that this is an appropriate matter for an urgent debate.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon.
The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis in British Railways".
The right hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to a serious issue for the whole country, as the whole House will be aware. The right hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that my powers in this matter are strictly limited to granting an emergency debate of three hours only, either tonight or tomorrow night.
The House has also instructed me to take into account the several factors set out in the order, but to give no reasons for my decision. It would often be easier for me if I could give reasons, but I am instructed not to do so.
I must rule that the right hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — Transport Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

FIXED PENALTY NOTICES GIVEN AT A POLICE STATION.

`(1) in any case where—

(a) a constable in uniform finds a person on any occasion and has reason to believe that on that occasion he is committing or has committed a fixed penalty offence;
(b) the offence appears to the constable to be an offence involving obligatory endorse-ment; and
(c) the person concerned does not produce his driving licence for inspection by the constable;
the constable may give him a notice stating that if, within five days after the noticeis given, he produces the notice together with his driving licence in person to a constable at the police station specified in the notice and the requirements of subsection (2)(a) and(b) below are met, he will then be given a fixed penalty notice in respect of the offence.

(2) If a person to whom a notice has been given under subsection (1) above produces the notice together with his driving licence in person to a constable at the police station specified in the notice within five days after the notice was so given to him and the following requirements are met, that is—

(a) the constable is satisfied, on inspecting the licence, that he would not be liable to be disqualified under section 19(2) of the Transport Act 1981 (disqualification where penalty points number twelve or more) if he were convicted of that offence; and
(b) he surrenders his driving licence to the constable to be retained and dealt with in accordance with this Part of this Act;
the constable shall give him a fixed penalty notice in respect of the offence to which the notice under subsection (1) above relates.

(3) A notice under subsection (1) above shall give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence to which it relates as are necessary for giving reasonable information about the alleged offence.

(4) This section does not apply in respect of offences committed in Scotland. '.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following: As amendments to the proposed new clause:

(a) in subsection (1) after 'specified', insert `by the person and recorded'.
(b) in subsection (2) after 'specified', insert 'by the person and recorded'.

Government amendments Nos. 31 to 33, 35, 36, 40,42, 41, 43, 48, 49, 51 to 55, 59 and 60.

Mrs. Chalker: In Committee a number of right hon. and hon. Members asked that we should make the fixed penalty system available to people who are not carrying their licences with them when they are stopped for a traffic offence.
The new clause was put down by the Government in recognition of the point that was put so strongly to us in Committee, that a fixed penalty should be available to those drivers who were not able to show their licences to the constable at the time. In preparing it, we had foremost in our mind the need to make sure that the procedure is as simple as possible and does not create too much extra work

for the police. As was said in Committee, it is no part of our intention to move the bulk of fixed penalty ticket offers from the roadside to the police station. For those cases where this is not possible, however, the amendment provides that it will be open to the constable to offer a preliminary fixed penalty notice. As with the fixed penalty itself, there will be no obligation on the driver to accept it. If he wishes to take up the offer of a fixed penalty, he will have to present himself at the police station of his choice, with his licence, within five days, in order that the number of points on the licence may be checked. If he is eligible on points and is willing to surrender his licence, he will be given a fixed penalty notice. From this point, all is as it would be with a normal fixed penalty. He has 21 days in which to decide what to do, and the normal consequences will flow from his decisions. If, on the other hand, he is found not to be eligible on points, no fixed penalty notice will be offered, and the force that issued the preliminary notice will have to decide whether to bring proceedings against him. The same will apply if he does not produce the notice and licence to the police station within the five days allowed.
In devising this scheme we have followed as closely as possible the existing procedure for requiring a licence to be produced for inspection under section 161 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, and we envisage that in many cases the two procedures will go hand in hand. This is the principal reason why we have selected five days as the time within which the preliminary notice must be presented at the station together with the licence. Five days is the period already allowed by section 161 for the production of the licence, and, as I have said, we envisage the two procedures working hand in hand. To have selected a longer period for the production of the preliminary notice would not, therefore, have assisted the driver who was required in any case to produce his licence under section 161 independently of the fixed penalty procedure, as I understand that he will be in all cases where the licence is not produced at the roadside.
In addition, we should be wary of building too much delay into the system. That is not what was asked for in Committee. I believe that five days is not only consistent with the existing provisions under section 161, but is a reasonable length of time for drivers to present their licences at a police station of their choice.
I hope that what I have said is sufficient to explain in brief the way in which we propose that the fixed penalty system should work for drivers who do not have their licences with them at the roadside when stopped by a member of the police force. I hope that, in the light of what was said in Committee, right hon. and hon. Members will welcome the new clause. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Opposition welcome the new clause. The scheme has been presented as a result of strong representations by Committee members.
We wanted the five-day option largely because a different procedure was being adopted in Scotland under the conditional offer. The position in Scotland appears to be unaffected by the new clause. The fact that the time may be slightly longer in Scotland does not bother us.
The new clause removes the anxiety that, by a back-door method, carrying a driving licence was being made compulsory. In the study on road traffic law by the Home Office and the Department of Transport, recommendation


14 on page 36 was that there should be a statutory requirement for drivers to carry licences. The recommendation was, sensibly, not accepted by the Government. Drivers do not carry licences for a variety of reasons. Some fear that it may be lost; others forget.
The Minister said that the police station at which the licence had to be delivered, along with the preliminary notice would be of the driver's choice. We put down amendments (a) and (b) to make that clear. I take it that they are not necessary, although the hon. Lady has not said so specifically. The word used is "specified". Section 161 of the earlier Act uses the same term, and in that measure it is clear that the choice may be made by the person against whom the offence is alleged.
A driver may be hundreds of miles away from home and have left his licence behind when the offence is committed, and it would not make sense to specify that locality. If there is any doubt about the matter the Government may consider the amendments, but if the hon. Lady is satisfied that they are unnecessary we shall not press them. We are glad that the Government listened to what we said in Committee.

Mr. Peter Fry: I am a member of the RAC's public policy committee and I hope that I am also regarded as a friend of the AA.
I welcome the new clause. It is a small step towards meeting the points put forward by the motoring organisations on the vexed question of the fixed penalty and the way in which it is to be introduced. My hon. Friend the Minister cannot expect entirely to please those organisations. Many motorists may find the fact that a police constable can inspect a driving licence extremely annoying. It may interfere with the relationship between the police and the public.
The Government have missed an opportunity. They have brought in a new range of fixed penalties and have made the situation more complicated than necessary. They could have penalised the wrongdoer, but helped the motorist generally, by allowing the fixed penalty office, rather than the police, to inspect the licence. The motorist could have been stopped and a judgment made without prior knowledge of previous convictions. If a different attitude had been taken to the list of fixed penalty offences, relations between the police and the public could have been improved.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I, too, welcome the new clause, but I should like the Government to consider two possibilities.
A family from Aberdeen may be starting a fortnight's holiday in the seaside resort of Wallasey. On the second or third day the driver may be in difficulty because of a possible offence under the clause. No one is at home to produce the licence. The only way to do so is to make an 800-mile round trip to Aberdeen. Could there be exceptions to the requirement to produce the licence within five days? I appreciate that if there is such a provision for this offence there many also have to be exceptions for other offences. One of the hon. Lady's constituents holidaying in Aberdeen could be equally disadvantaged.
What would be the attitude of the Department or the police to a driver carrying Photostat copies of his licence,

MOT and insurance certificates and possibly his authorisation for the AA relay service and the RAC? My AA registration number ends in the letters "FC". I thought at one time that it meant frequent caller for aid and assistance. Would a police constable accept a Photostat copy if a driver did not have his licence on him?
I welcome what has been done. I hope that it presages further concessions.

Mr. Barry Sherrman: I join those who welcome the concession. We argued for it long and hard in Committee. I am tempted to err on the hard side for carrying licences, but the new clause is a sensible accommodation.
Can the Minister assure us that the clause will not open up the system to the abuse that exists for fixed penalties for parking, where only 50 per cent. of the fines are paid? I hope that she has that in mind.

Mrs. Chalker: I am glad that the House is giving a general welcome to new clause 1, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) for his comments. I assure him that I said that it was a police station of the motorist's choice at which he should present his licence. Therefore, there is no need for the hon. Gentleman's two amendments (a) and (b). If he wants to press the matter, I advise him that there is a tidier way of doing it, but I am told that it is not necessary. However, after the hectic last few days I shall have another look at the amendments to make sure that I am right.
As we are covered by section 161 of the 1972 Act, which will work hand in hand with the Bill when it becomes an Act, I see no reason for such a specific insertion as that envisaged by the hon. Gentleman, but I am grateful to him, because it has enabled us to probe the matter.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I realise that there are many Government amendments on the Order Paper and I do not wish to overload the parliamentary draftsmen any more. I take the hon. Lady's point. The amendments are for the avoidance of doubt. If she thinks that the tidier way becomes necessary, I hope that she will look at the matter in the other place.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman has my assurance on that matter. If we think that it is necessary, we shall do it in the tidiest way.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's jab about the number of Government amendments, I can only say that I have done my level best to respond to all the things that he asked for in Committee. As that is why there are so many amendments, it shows that there has been a good mutual effort, with him prodding me and my responding.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) for his slightly limited welcome. I understand the concern of the local organisations about the move towards a fixed penalty system, because there have been misgivings. As my hon. Friend knows, there has been enormous pressure on our courts in dealing with motoring offences, some relatively minor. The Government felt it only right to take these steps.
My hon. Friend said that he wished that we had been able to allow inspection of the licence at a fixed penalty office rather than at the police station. I was worried about that suggestion when it was made in Committee, because


it should he a police officer who looks at the licence. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the fixed penalty points system brought into force by the Transport Act 1981 limits the maximum number of points with which one may continue to drive.
Nobody other than a police officer should deal with this matter. While I realise that I am at variance with my friends in the motoring organisations on this issue, it is right that the licence should be inspected at a police station if an endorsable offence is being reviewed prior to the giving of a fixed penalty notice, following the issue of a preliminary fixed penalty notice at the roadside. I am sorry that I cannot respond positively, but I think that my hon. Friend understands the difficulties.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) hypothesised that one of the constituents of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North might come to my constituency for a holiday—he would be welcome to do so—but might leave his driving licence at home. In view of the recommendation of the working party that drivers should at all times carry their licences with them, and the extension in the new clause giving the drivers the benefit of five days, we should make the fixed penalty system unworkable if we were to extend it beyond that limited time.
I hope that drivers will carry their licences with them, because they are undoubtedly useful as a means of identification for other purposes. If one is away from home, it is sensible to have a means of identification. The point that I am making to the hon. Member for West Derby is that a further extension, or an exception, for whatever very good reason, would make the system unworkable. That is why I fear that I shall not respond to him positively now, or at a later stage.

Sir Albert Costain: There are many pickpockets about. What about a motorist who carries his driving licence with him, but loses his wallet? What can he do in those circumstances?

Mrs. Chalker: I hope that if anybody is sufficiently unfortunate to have his pocket picked and lose his driving licence, he will immediately report the theft to the police station. Such a report would obviously be available to another police officer when requesting a licence, or within the five-day period from the police station concerned. I hope that that communication will make this difficulty less serious.
The hon. Member for West Derby also asked about the Government's attitude to the carrying of photocopies of licences and other documents. Because of the forgeries that the police force tell me it comes across in these days of modern technology, we could not accept photocopies of licences. Sadly, they are a matter for forgery on more occasions than we should like. It must be the actual licence that is carried by the motorist. It is a valuable means of identification for all sorts of reasons unconnected with motoring. For that reason, I hope that motorists will always carry them.

Mr. Fry: The value of having a copy would be demonstrated if the original were lost for some reason. Swansea is not known for 100 per cent. efficiency. Nor, alas, is the Post Office. Over the years I have had cause to complain about driving licences that have been put in the post but have not arrived. Therefore, what will my

hon. Friend say to the motorist whose licence has been lost in this way, and what defence has he when he is stopped for one of these offences?

Mrs. Chalker: I can say only that if the licence has gone astray the important thing for any driver to carry is a copy of the letter to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre reporting the fact that it has gone astray and has not been received. We hope that the driver will not commit an offence during this period, but if he should, it is a difficulty that will probably mean that he will not be given a fixed penalty notice at the police station.
That could mean one of two things, because the fixed penalty notice is a third option, above the two that already exist for a police officer in apprehending a motorist whom he considers to have committed an offence. The first is a caution of varying strength, according to the way in which the offence was committed. The second is the report for prosecution. One hopes that drivers will have i heir licences with them.
On the more general point, we are doing everything that we can to bring the existing system at the DVLC at Swansea to a better standard. I pay tribute to some of the improvements that have been made there recently. There are still great improvements to be made in the coming months and years at the centre, which we have in hand.

Mr. Fry: I welcome the Government's understanding of the problems of motorists who do not carry their driving licences with them, which has led to the new clause. However, as my hon. Friend has just spelt out, a motorist who inadvertently does not have his licence in his possession, because it has been lost in the post or gone astray, is forced to have his case put to court, because he cannot be given a fixed penalty.
The motorist in that unfortunate position would be in the same position as the motorist who did not have his licence with him before the new clause was introduced. Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider—I put it no more strongly at the moment—that in cases such as this advice could be given to the court that no penalty should be awarded higher than the fixed penalty where the absence of the licence, and therefore the reference to the court, was out of the hands of the unfortunate motorist?

Mrs. Chalker: I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said. My first instinct is to say "No, we cannot so advise the courts", because it has other, much wider complications. I say this with some hesitancy, because I cannot list the complications, but I know that they are there. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to write to him about this, as I do not think that it is possible to do what he asks.
4.30 pm
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) asked whether the Department had considered the possibility of abuse of the five-day leeway, as I will call it, in the presentation of the driving licence. Obviously, in any widening of scope, there is the possibility of abuse. In weighing the strong arguments put in Committee and those made by the motoring organisations and others for this extension to be in line with section 161 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, we are satisfied that there will be no greater abuse than is involved in the current presentation of a driving licence at the police station of the driver's choice.
This is obviously a matter that must be examined when the scheme comes into force. Should the need for amendment arise, then, as has happened over a long period as driving practices have changed and police instructions have changed, it may be necessary to make some small adjustments. I hope, however that the system will not be abused. The abuse of any system inevitably results in a tightening of the law in order to prevent the abuse.
The new clause is moved with the interests of motorists in mind, appreciating that it may not always be possible for them to carry a licence with them, for one good reason or another. The warning that I always give is that any part of the law that is abused will be subject to greater tightening, which further restricts the liberty of the individual.
I have been glad to hear the welcome given to the new clause. I hope that the practice, when it starts in about two years' time, will prove to be for the greater long-term convenience of the motorist. I believe that that will be so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

DEFINITION OF HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLE

'.—(1) In section 104 of the 1967 Act (general interpretation provisions) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (1) (in substitution for subsections (1A) to (1E) inserted by section 1(7) of the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act 1973)—
(1A) In this Act 'heavy commercial vehicle' means any goods vehicle which has an operating weight exceeding 7·5 tonnes.
(1B) The operating weight of a goods vehicle for the purposes of this section is—

(a) in the case of a motor vehicle not drawing a trailer, or in the case of a trailer, its maximum laden weight;
(b) in the case of an articulated vehicle, its maximum laden weight (if it has one) and otherwise the aggregate maximum laden weight of all the individual vehicles forming part of that articulated vehicle; and
(c) in the case of a motor vehicle (other than an articulated vehicle) drawing one or more trailers, the aggregate maximum laden weight of the motor vehicle and the trailer or trailers attached to it.
(1C) In this section—
'articulated vehicle' means a motor vehicle with a trailer so attached to it as to be partially superimposed upon it;
'goods vehicle' has the same meaning (except as provided by subsection (1D) below) as in the Road Traffic Act 1972;
and references to the maximum laden weight of a vehicle are references to the total laden weight which must not be exceeded in the case of that vehicle if it is used in Great Britain without contravening any regulations for the time being in force under section 40 of that Act (construction and use regulations).
(1D) In this section, and in the definition of 'goods vehicle' in section 196(1) of that Act as it applies for the purposes of this section, 'trailer' means any vehicle other than a motor vehicle.
(1E) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsections (1A) and (1B) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection)—

(a) by substituting weights of a different description for any of the weights there mentioned; or

(b) in the case of subsection (1A) above, by substituting a weight of a different description or amount, or a weight different both in description and amount, for the weight there mentioned.
(1F) Different regulations may be made under subsection (1E) above for the purpose of different provisions of this Act and as respects different classes of vehicles or as respects the same class of vehicles in different circumstances and as respects different times of the day or night and as respects roads in different localities.
(1G)Regulations under subsection (1E) above shall not so amend subsection (IA) above that there is any case in which a goods vehicle whose operating weight (ascertained in accordance with subsection (1B) above as originally enacted) does not exceed 7·5 tonnes is a heavy commercial vehicle for any of the purposes of this Act".
(2) In section 36A of the 1972 Act (prohibition of parking of heavy commercial vehicles on verges and footways), for subsections (5) to (9) (which contain a definition of "heavy commercial vehicle" which corresponds to that replaced for the purposes of the 1967 Act by the definition inserted in section 104 of that Act by subsection (1) above) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(5) In this section 'heavy commercial vehicle' means any goods vehicle which has an operating weight exceeding 7·5 tonnes.
(6) The operating weight of a goods vehicle for the purposes of this section is—

(a) in the case of a motor vehicle not drawing a trailer or in the case of a trailer, its maximum laden weight;
(b) in the case of an articulated vehicle, its maximum laden weight (if it has one) and otherwise the aggregate maximum laden weight of all the individual vehicles forming part of that articulated vehicle; and
(c) in the case of a motor vehicle (other than an articulated vehicle) drawing one or more trailers, the aggregate maximum laden weight of the motor vehicle and the trailer or trailers attached to it.
(7) In this section 'articulated vehicle' means a motor vehicle with a trailer so attached to it as to be partially superimposed upon it; and references to the maximum laden weight of a vehicle are references to the total laden weight which must not be exceeded in the case of that vehicle if it is to be used in Great Britain without contravening any regulations for the time being in force under section 40 of this Act.
(8) In this section, and in the definition of 'goods vehicle' in section 196(1) of this Act as it applies for the purposes of this section, 'trailer' means any vehicle other than a motor vehicle.
(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsections (5) and (6) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection)—

(a) by substituting weights of a different description for any of the weights there mentioned; or
(b) in the case of subsection (5) above, by substituting a weight of a different description or amount, or a weight different both in description and amount, for the weight there mentioned.
(10) Different regulations may be made under subsection (9) above as respects different classes of vehicles or as respects the same class of vehicles in different circumstances and as respects different times of the day or night and as respects different localities.
(11) Regulations under subsection (9) above shall not so amend subsection above that there is any case in which a goods vehicle whose operating weight (ascertained in accordance with subsection (6) above as originally enacted) does not exceed 7·5 tonnes is a heavy commercial vehicle for any of the purposes of this section.".
(3) For the purpose of determining whether or not any vehicle is a heavy commercial vehicle for the purposes of a traffic regulation order or experimental traffic order—



(a) made before 13th August 1981 (whether or not varied or, in the case of an experimental traffic order, continued after that date); and
(b) including any such provision as is referred to in section 1(3AA) of the 1967 Act; the new definition shall not apply during the transitional period and the previous definition shall continue to apply during that period.
(4) In subsection (3) above—
experimental traffic order" has the same meaning as it has in section 9 of the 1967 Act, but does not include an order in respect of traffic on roads in Greater London;
the new definition" means section 104(1A) to (1G) of that Act, as it has effect by virtue of subsection (1) above;
the previous definition" means section 104(1A) to (1E) of that Act, as it had effect before the coming into force of this section;
traffic regulation order" has the same meaning as it has in section 1 of that Act; and
transitional period" means the period beginning with the coming into force of this section and ending with 31st December 1989.'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 64 and 80.

Mrs. Chalker: Although the new clause and the amendments appear to be substantial, I can honestly assure the House that the objectives are simple and straightforward. The purpose is to substitute a new definition of "heavy commercial vehicle" for the present definition in section 104 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 and section 36A of the Road Traffic Act 1972. It may not be clear to some hon. Members why I am moving the new clause and attendant amendments. I need therefore to explain some of the history behind the new clause.
Since 1973, when the present definition was inserted in the 1967 and 1972 Acts by the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act 1973—often known, I understand, as the Dykes Act after its sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), heavy commercial vehicles have been classified for traffic regulation purposes as those with an unladen weight exceeding 3 tons. During this time, many local authorities have relied on this definition when making traffic regulation orders to control the movement of heavy lorries. They continue to do so in many cases where controls are needed to improve the environment of their areas.
Over the last decade, however, the trend in the classification of heavy lorries has moved away from describing vehicles in terms of their unladen weight. Today, lorries tend to be classified according to their maximum laden weight. Their operation is governed by a weight being the weight of the vehicle with the maximum load it is permitted to carry in the United Kingdom. Requirements for such matters as heavy goods vehicle drivers' licences and reflective rear chevrons on lorries are now determined in accordance with maximum gross weight rather than unladen weight, and the plating requirements which are essential for enforcement, as hon. Members I know will agree, are in terms of gross weights.
The need to change the definition of "heavy commercial vehicles" has been prompted, however, by general metrication requirements, which have been followed in the new Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981 which, as hon. Members will remember,

came into force in August last year. These require signs imposing weight restrictions on heavy lorries to show the restriction in terms of the metric maximum gross weight of the vehicle.
As the House will appreciate, it is essential that traffic signs and traffic regulation orders are in the same terminology if they are to be enforceable. The change in the signing requirements has now put the definition in the 1967 Act out of step. Authorities are therefore inhibited from making new orders to restrict the movement of heavy lorries for amenity purposes. It is important that this discrepancy is resolved without delay so that local authorities can continue to introduce measures to protect their inhabitants from lorry nuisance.
The new definition applies to vehicles with an operating weight exceeding 7·5 tonnes. The operating weight is the maximum laden weight which is not to be exceeded in Great Britain. This is set out in the construction and use regulations and appears on a plate in the cab of each vehicle. For this reason, it is often called the "plated weight". As 7·5 tonnes is the threshold for heavy goods vehicles licences, drivers will know whether the vehicle they are driving is likely to contravene a lorry ban. This is also the weight at which rear chevrons are required on lorries. So the adoption of 7·5 tonnes should considerably aid enforcement of weight restrictions. This is something that both sides of the House are agreed we must do.
Provision is also made to enable the Secretary of State to amend the definition by regulations so that the weight or description of vehicles can be changed in the future if this seems to be warranted. Some protection for the transport industry is included to provide that the definition shall not be amended by regulations in a way that would bring in vehicles of 7·5 tonnes or below.
In making the change to the new definition it is important to preserve the integrity of those traffic orders that were made before the new traffic signs regulations took effect. The traffic signs regulations specifically saved existing signs until 31 December 1989 and the same must be done for the orders if they are to keep in step. Hon. Members will understand that it would be totally impracticable for authorities to have to replace countless traffic signs overnight many of them during the early years of their useful life—and it would add considerably to the financial burdens of the country as a whole and local authorities specifically. Subsection 3 of the new clause therefore preserves the present definition in respect of those orders made before 13 August 1981 until the end of 1989. This will allow an orderly and gradual change to i he new terminology without placing unnecessary burdens on the authorities concerned.
The House may also like to know that the proposed change in the definition in the 1967 Act has been generally welcomed by the local authority associations and the road haulage industry. In order to avoid a proliferation of different definitions on the statute book, an identical description of heavy commercial vehicle is being inserted in section 36A of the Road Traffic Act 1972 which prohibits the parking of these vehicles on verges and footways.
There are two consequential amendments to clause 55 and schedule 6. These are purely technical amendments needed to facilitate the repeal of the provision to be superseded. I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. Lee) for his efforts to correct the heavy commercial vehicle definition. My hon. Friend,


as I have shown, was entirely right to do so. But as time is unlikely to allow him a chance to succeed with his Private Member's Bill, I believe this to be an important step forward that will aid local authorities in their important environmental task of restricting the weights of lorries on unsuitable roads. It will make the task of those carrying out enforcement that much clearer. I hope that the House will feel able to accept the new clause and its attendant amendments.

Mr. Albert Booth: It is easy to appreciate, given the number of vehicles that flow across the frontiers of the Community, the desirability of uniform definitions for vehicles in the Community. But when we come to the actual changes that we should make, it is appropriate to ask how far the definitions, and the tonnages that are involved, lend themselves to the regulation of heavy vehicles that we want in Britain.
It is fairly simple to table a new clause saying that the definition of a heavy commercial vehicle shall cease to be 3 tonnes unladen and shall become 7.5 tonnes operating weight.
With respect to the Under-Secretary, it is not so easy to enforce that weight. It is much easier to recognise a 3-tonne unladen vehicle or a 30 cwt. unladen vehicle than it is to recognise a vehicle on the basis of operating weight unless there is a clear and invariable relationship between the unladen and the laden weights of vehicles. It would be theoretically possible to give the same maximum operating weights to all vehicles of a given unladen weight. But the new clause does not propose to do that.
In its definitions of operating weight, the new clause takes a number of possible combinations which might make up the total operating weight. It does so in subsections (1) and (2). Since there is a question of what will constitute operating weight over a range of vehicles, does the EEC require that we use, as a common definition point, 7·5 metric tonnes of operating weight?
Having visited a number of places where local authorities are concerned about how far they can effectively route vehicles, and how far they can put prohibitions on the use of certain types of heavy vehicle, I am keenly aware that this type of vehicle is not necessarily the one about which local authorities are particularly worried.
For example, in places where bypass routes are open, the local authority might be happy only to block the large four-axle fixed vehicle and the 32-tonne articulated lorry from passing through the village or the town and to force them, other than when they are picking up or delivering, to use the bypass.
The local authorities would not necessarily want to ban all vehicles over 7·5 tonnes from routes that are capable of taking them—in terms of road strength and in terms of the space they require. It would be helpful to those authorities that are following this matter closely, for the reasons the Minister has mentioned, if the Minister were to say whether it is the Government's intention to facilitate them, if they want to ban heavy lorries on certain routes at levels above this figure. That would make sense for the industry and for local authority planning and would facilitate the use of roads that are suitable for the largest vehicles.
Is this the most suitable definition for the restriction of parking on verges and footways? I would not like to think that the pavement outside my house might have, when I go home tonight, a lorry of 7·25 tonnes operating weight parked on it. I doubt whether the pavement would sustain that. The local authority would not like it, either. Is the definition in the new clause the most suitable one for this purpose?
4.45 pm
The Under-Secretary has reminded us that the Government are taking a power in the new clause to change by regulation the weights that may be used in respect of parking on verges and footways. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm whether the power is confined to that or whether it would apply to the other part of the clause also. If it is confined to the parking of vehicles on verges—section 36(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1972—subsection (9) of the new clause allows the Secretary of State by regulation to amend the weights that shall apply.
The Under-Secretary of State said that there is a safeguard against amending the weights downwards. Therefore, one can only assume that the Secretary of State will gain a power to raise the weights, which, in some ways, is the more alarming. If one makes up a combined operating weight to 7·5 tonnes with a trailer combination it will impose much less loading on roads, pavements and parking spaces than that some 7·5 tonnes on a two, fixed-axle vehicle. So one can recognise the technical sense of the new clause but such is the understandable sensitivity on the issue of parking vehicles on verges that some assurances must be given about the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would use the regulation process on the restriction of operating loads for parking. Up to now, this has been controlled by primary legislation. Those are all the points that I wish to raise. I hope that the Government will give a favorable response on the issue of flexibility of routing.
The Armitage argument has thrown up a large measure of agreement in the House about the desirability of having sensible bypassing arrangements. If we are to have such sensible arrangements we need sensible regulations to ensure that the appropriate types of vehicles use those bypasses.
It is realistic to say that we shall not have ideal bypass routes for every town and village in Britain in the next decade. Therefore we shall have to tolerate bypass routes that in some cases, will be less than ideal but which, nevertheless, would afford some protection to inner towns and to villages if they were required to be the routes of the biggest vehicles. The Government might set a limit that is appreciably above 7·5 tonnes operating weight but that would still be a useful means of direction of traffic.
I am sure the Minister would accept that that would have been within the spirit and intention of the Dykes Act even if not conforming exactly with the proposals of its sections. In a non-party political sense, it would be seen, I hope, as a serious contribution towards an intelligent use of roads and vehicles. It would be seen as an incentive to local authorities, which, for some time, will not be able to have an ideal bypassing arrangement, nevertheless to go for an arrangement that would relieve the town centres from the heaviest of vehicles and at the same time give access, which will be needed until some other arrangements can be made, to a number of commercial


vehicles which, while above the limits set down in the new clause, are smaller than the biggest vehicles on our roads today.

Mr. Ogden: First, I ask the Secretary of State whether he shares my admiration of the skill and dexterity with which the Under-Secretary of State steered her way through the technical explanation of the effect of the clause and its history.
Some time ago changes were made to our road signs and that means that changes must be made in definitions. If we had left the road signs alone, there would have been no need to change definitions. Are we to be told later that because we made road sign changes and changes in definitions of heavy commercial vehicles it will be necessary to introduce new regulations as a third stage? Is this second stage the end of the procedural changes or will something more complicated be introduced later? In other words, will it be a two-stage or three-stage operation?

Mrs. Chalker: I believe that this will be a two-stage operation. I should be slightly anxious if I were asked to say that there will never be a further stage. Something might occur in another part of our economy that will cause us to enter into a re-examination. I can assure the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) that to the best of my knowledge this is the second and final stage. However, I may be wrong. After 11 weeks I may not know as much as I want to know about heavy goods vehicles and trafficking. If I am wrong, I hope that he will forgive me.

Mr. Ogden: During the hon. Lady's opening remarks her right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer entered the Chamber and took his place on the Treasury Bench, looked worried and then departed. May we have an assurance that his appearance had nothing to do with what we are discussing?

Mrs. Chalker: I did not even see my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that the worries that the hon. Gentleman saw on his face had nothing to do with the moving of the new clause.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) rightly said that we need a much more intelligent use of our roads and of the vehicles that travel upon them. I agree with him wholeheartedly. We sometimes forget that a driver of a heavy goods vehicle is responsible for the laden weight of his vehicle. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has talked on many occasions about the enforcement of weight provisions. We are increasing the number of dynamic weighing machines considerably and this is helping to ensure that drivers of heavy goods vehicles adhere to the law on maximum laden weights. My experience of watching this operation is that drivers are becoming much better informed about total laden weights and the way in which lorries should be loaded.
There can be certainty about the unladen weight of a vehicle but it is overloading that causes excessive damage to our roads and the disruption of communities. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we must protect communities from excessive laden weights and that the emphasis must be placed there rather than on unladen weights. That is what we sought to do by changing signs by regulation. We are seeking to bring all our transport law into direct operation. It is clear that the 1976 Act is out of date.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there is a direct correlation between unladen weights and maximum

laden weights. There is no direct correlation but 7·5 tonnes maximum laden weight is the generally recognised equivalent of 3 tonnes unladen weight. That is the rule of thumb. A maximum laden weight of 7·5 tonnes is the weight at which rear chevrons are required, which make it much easier to spot the vehicles.
The change in definition is a direct consequence of the change in the traffic signs regulations, but it is not linked directly to lorry weights within the EEC. I hope that we can bring our law up to date so that we may enforce it more effectively. That is the object of the new clause.
The right hon. Gentleman directed some of his remarks to heavier total weight bans on certain routes. This concept appeals to my right hon. Friend and myself and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the suggestion. I am not sure whether it will be possible to take that action by means of the new clause as it stands. However, I shall consider that issue while the Bill is in another place.

Mr. Fry: Before my hon. Friend goes too far along that route, will she bear in mind the Transport and Road Research Laboratory report on the so-called Windsor cordon, which showed that by designating certain routes that lorries could use and banning them from other routes the heavy lorries were moved from the front of some houses to the front of others? At the end of the day there was a considerable increase in transport charges, which had to be paid by the local community. I urge my hon. Friend not to go too far too quickly along the route suggested by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth).

Mrs. Chalker: I understand my hon. Friend's argument. If all traffic is forced off one route and it all gees on to another, we inconvenience B instead of A. My right hon. Friend has asked counties to formulate a lorry strategy because he wishes to avoid the problem that occurred following the Windsor cordon. The problem occurred in other areas but it was most dramatic in the Windsor area. I shall try to take a balanced decision, together with my right hon. Friend, on the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness. Where city and town centres have especially difficult turns for heavy vehicles it seems sensible to introduce variable weight restrictions. They must be maximum laden weight restrictions rather than maximum unladen weights.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about parking on verges and footways. The new definition contained in this rather lengthy new clause is intended to replace the 3 tonnes unladen weight definition with its metric maximum laden weight equivalent. I agree that anyone who finds a vehicle of even a lower weight than the maximum metric equivalent laden weight parked outside his home will be horrified. I hope that police officers will take action if they find such a vehicle parked on a pavement. They often take action despite some of our law not having been brought into full enforcement.

Mr. Booth: The new clause appears to go further than merely swapping English weights for metric weights. I thought that the hon. Lady acknowledged that it gives the power to change these weights by regulation. I asked her to confirm whether that was so only for footpath parking or whether it applied to the previous provision. If it applies only to footpath parking, what is the justification for allowing, by regulation, a higher parking weight?

Mrs. Chalker: I am informed that the facility to amend by regulation will be parallel with the provisions contained in current legislation. The provisions in the new clause merely preserve the status quo. They apply across the breadth of signing and do not relate only to parking on verges and footways. The new clause merely contains a translation of the old imperial weights into the metric equivalents. That is reflected in the change from the 3 tonnes unladen weight to the maximum metric laden weight equivalent. I hope that that clears up the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that this is a good measure. In my view, it will help with enforcement, which I am very keen to improve. As I said, we are conscious of the need to increase the right weights on lorries and the proper loading on lorries. I remind the House that we have dramatically increased the numbers of dynamic weighing machines, many more of which are coming into operation. They will help drivers, who are responsible for the laden weight of their vehicles, to get used to that weight.
I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be happy to allow the clause to be read a Second time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

ALTERATION OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE HIGHWAY CODE

'The following section shall be substituted for section 37 of the 1972 Act

"The Highway Code.

37.—(1) The Highway Code shall continue to have effect, subject however to revision in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) Subject to the following provisons of this section, the Secretary of State may from time to time revise the Highway Code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions of the Code in such manner as he thinks fit.

(3)Where the Secretary of State proposes to revise the Highway Code by making any alterations in the provisions of the Code, other than alterations merely consequential on changes in statutory provisions on which any provision of the Code is based or to which any such provision refers, he shall lay the proposed alterations before both Houses of Parliament and shall not make the proposed revision until after the end of a period of forty days beginning with the day on which the alterations were so laid.

(4)If within the period mentioned in subsection (3) above either House resolves that the proposed alterations be not made, the Secretary of State shall not make the proposed revision (but without prejudice to the laying before Parliament of further proposals for alteration in accordance with that subsection).

(5)Before revising the Highway Code by making any alterations in its provisions which are required by subsection (3) above to be laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.

(6)The Secretary of State shall cause the Highway Code to be printed and may cause copies of it to be sold to the public at such price as he may determine.

(7)A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under this Act, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 or the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

(8) In this section 'the Highway Code' means the code comprising directions for the guidance of persons using roads issued under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1930, as from time to time revised under this section or under any previous enactment.

(9) For the purposes of subsection (3) above—

(a)"statutory provision" means a provision contained in an act or in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;
(b)where the proposed alterations are laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the later day shall be taken to be the day on which they were laid before both Houses; and
(c)in reckoning any period of forty days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.".'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5 pm

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 83.

Mrs. Chalker: In Committee I said that two amendments tabled by the Opposition relating to the Highway Code procedures were acceptable in principle. Their intention was to find a more efficient means of reviewing the code which still allowed for changes to be fully debated. I think that all members of the Committee agreed that the procedures had become far too lengthy. On the one hand, making a revised Highway Code subject to negative resolution in Parliament, rather than the affirmative procedure as at present, would undoubtedly simplify and expedite future revisions of the code. On the other hand, a requirement about consultation before any changes were laid before Parliament is not unreasonable, even though it would simply enshrine in law what has already become standard practice.
We felt that we could improve on the wording and at the same time bring forward a further amendment which would permit the code to be changed in the intervening years, between full-scale revisions, for the purpose of reflecting changes in the law. When the last revision of the code was issued in 1978, about nine years had elapsed since the previous one, and before that the gap had been 10 years.
An interval of that order is not unrealistic for a code that is made up largely of common-sense advice which does not need constant attention. However, it is unfortunate, as things stand, that significant changes in the law often have to wait longer than we would like before there is an opportunity to reflect them in the text of the Highway Code. We have to have an affirmative resolution.
Subsection (3) aims to overcome that difficulty. I stress that, under our proposals, the bulk of the text of the code, which consists of common-sense advice on road user behaviour, would remain subject to parliamentary consideration. I hope that this move, which is in line with the conclusion that the Committee reached, but did not vote on, will make it easier to have a Highway Code which is up to date and avoid the long gaps which have elapsed between the updating of the code on previous occasions. I hope that the House will welcome new clause 3 and the associated amendment.

Mr. Roger Stott: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I thank the Minister for tabling the new clause, which is wholly in line with the debates that we had in Committee on this issue.
The House had a preliminary debate on the issue last year in respect of part of the Transport Act 1981, which contained road traffic regulations. My noble Friend Lord Underhill raised the matter in the House of Lords, because at that stage we had received no satisfactory reply from the hon. Lady's predecessor. The Government said in another place that they intended to bring forward regulations to meet some of the more important demands made in the House about revisions of the Highway Code.
Almost a year to the day, we have gone nearly full circle, and the Minister has now accepted the demands made by the Committee and the House about the Highway Code. The hon. Lady said that the Highway Code was last published in 1968, with a minor revision in 1978. It seems ludicrous that we have to proceed in this way, particularly when innovations such as the zig-zag lines at pedestrian crossings did not appear in print until 1976. They affect all road users, but they were not fully explained in the code.
This provision is widely welcomed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, and I am sure that it will be welcomed, too, by Conservative Members who were members of the Standing Committee, which discussed in detail the revisions of the Highway Code and the way in which we should proceed. I am convinced that this will have the support of the motoring organisations, because it is something that they have wanted for many years. It is a sensible provision, and I thank the hon. Lady for having listened to what we said in this connection.

Mr. Sheerman: This spirit of unanimity in the Chamber cannot go on for ever, but let us enjoy it for a little longer.
As a member of the Committee, I, too, welcome this sensible new clause 3. It facilitates a change to the Highway Code's format and to items within it. In the past 18 months there have been profound changes in highway safety. As one who is active in this connection, I hope that that will continue. However, I hope that the Highway Code will not change so much that it loses all continuity. As the hon. Lady will know, many of us eagerly await the implementation of the legislation on seat belts, which involves the introduction of the exemptions. That change will be much more readily put into the Highway Code under these proposed arrangements. The method in the past was somewhat cumbersome.
I suspect that there will be some resistance. I have visited Swansea, and I suspect that the physical act of changing the code and getting rid of the hundreds of thousands of stock-piled Highway Codes before the new ones are introduced will be a formidable task, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to deal with that. This measure contains the innovations that we want. I have a pragmatic approach to safety, and I therefore welcome the flexibility that the new clause contains. I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in welcoming this change.

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) and for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) for the welcome that they have given to the new clause. I do not believe that there will be any difficulty in producing the new updated Highway Code, with the

changes in printing methods and so on that are coming along. If there are any difficulties in Swansea, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East knows that I shall be the first to be on to the people there to try to alleviate the difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman was right in the example that he gave of the changes that the House has passed on seat belts. They are now advisory, and, depending on the outcome of our debate on the regulations in that respect, should become mandatory before long, in line with the decision of both Houses. That change will be put into the Highway Code. At present, it simply refers to the advisory situation.
This is a worthwhile change, and I am grateful for the continued pressure from both sides of the House to find a better way of keeping our Highway Code up to date.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 4

IMMOBILISATION OF VEHICLES ILLEGALLY PARKED, ETC.

`(1) Where a constable finds a vehicle on a road which has been permitted to remain at rest there in contravention of any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment, he may—

(a) fix an immobilisation device to the vehicle while it remains in the place in which he finds it; or
(b) move it from that place to another place on the same or another road and fix an immobilisation device to it in that other place.

(2) On any occasion when a constable fixes an immobilisation device to a vehicle in accordance with this section he shall also affix to the vehicle a notice—

(a) indicating that such a device has been fixed to the vehicle and warning that no attempt should be made to drive it or otherwise put it in motion until it has been released from that device;
(b) specifying the steps to be taken in order to secure its release; and
(c) giving such other information as may be prescribed.

(3) A vehicle to which an immobilisation device has been fixed in accordance with this section may only be released from that device by a constable.

(4) Subject to subsection (3) above, a vehicle to which an immobilisation device has been fixed in accordance with this section shall be released from that device on payment in any manner specified in the notice affixed to the vehicle under subsection (2) above of such charge in respect of the release as may be prescribed.

(5) A constable may authorise another person to take under his direction any action that the constable has power to take for the purposes of this section, and any action so taken shall be regarded for those purposes as taken by the constable.

(6) A notice affixed to a vehicle under this section shall not be removed or interfered with except by or under the authority of the person in charge of the vehicle or the person by whom it was put in the place where it was found by the constable; and any person contravening this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.

(7) Any person who, withsout being authorised to do so in accordance with this section, removes or attempts to remove an immobilisation device fixed to a vehicle in accordance with this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.

(8) Where a vehicle is moved in accordance with this section before an immobilisation device is fixed to it, any power of removal under regulations for the time being in force under section 20 of the 1967 Act (removal of vehicles illegally parked etc.) which was exercisable in relation to that vehicle immediately before it was so moved shall continue to be exercisable in relation to that vehicle while it remains in the place to which it was so moved.

(9) In relation to any vehicle which is removed in pursuance of any such regulations or under section 3 of the Refuse Disposal


(Amenity) Act 1978 (duty of local authority to remove abandoned vehicles) from a place to which it was moved in accordance with this section, references in the definition of "person responsible" in section 52 of the 1967 Act and section 5 of the Act of 1978 mentioned above (recovery from person responsible of charges and expenses in respect of vehicles removed) to the place from which the vehicle was removed shall be read as references to the place in which it was immediately before it was moved in accordance with this section.

(10)In this section "immobilisation device" means anything designed or adapted to be fixed to a vehicle for the purpose of preventing it from being driven or otherwise put in motion.

(11) Any sum received by virtue of subsection (4) above shall be paid into the police fund.

(12) This section shall extend only to such areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this, it will be convenient to take the following: As an amendment to the proposed new clause: (a) line at end insert
`(13) The Secretary of State shall not extend this section to an area unless requested to do so by the local authority for the area.'.
Government amendment No. 66.

Mr. Howell: This clause will allow the police, in selected areas specified in regulations, to immobilise illegally parked vehicles by fitting them with wheel clamps. As with the existing vehicle removal powers, the driver must go to a police station or pound and pay for the release of the vehicle. The cost and the inconvenience involved will, we believe, act as a serious deterrent to the minority of antisocial drivers, who add to the appalling congestion faced by law-abiding road users in central London and who have no respect for existing penalties.
The clause is a response to a strong plea from the Metropolitan Police, supported by the GLC and the London boroughs, that they should be allowed to use wheel clamps experimentally. I must confess that I have taken a good deal of persuading to introduce the measure and I have decided to do so only after widespread consultations with the GLC and the London boroughs, the Metropolitan Police, the motoring organisations and the general public.
I realise that the first suggestion may be that immobilising a vehicle will not reduce congestion. Of course, the police will not clamp vehicles that are causing serious obstruction. They will remove them as they do now. But the two great advantages of immobilisation as a deterrent are that it is much quicker and less labour-intensive than removal—an important factor when police manpower is scarce—and that it leaves the immobilised car on view as an effective warning to other drivers tempted to park illegally.
The clause will enable me to authorise the police to use clamps experimentally in certain areas, and we shall monitor the results carefully to make sure that the device achieves the results we hope for. It seems to work well in some American and European cities but we wish to be sure that it is right for London.
If it works it will lead to less congestion and quicker turnover at meters, which are gains worth having. It will also ensure that off-street parking facilities are more fully

used because drivers will no longer have the alternative, which is cheap to them but expensive to other road users, of parking freely and illegally on the street. It will thus restore the balance between the use of roads for movement and the legitimate needs of motorists for short-term parking and access. To strengthen that balance the GLC has agreed, at my request, to review the supply of short-term parking in central London. It has taken the matter up with the boroughs concerned and Westminster has already made a positive response.
Wheel clamps are not the only step that we are taking to reduce traffic congestion in central London by tackling the growing problem of illegal parking. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is determined to support the efforts of the Metropolitan Police to sustain the gradual improvement in the recruitment of traffic wardens, and has recently announced an increase in the fixed penalty for parking offences to £10. The improvements to the fixed penalty system in part III of the Bill will make it much more difficult to ignore fixed penalty notices. They will be enforced as fines, unless the driver or vehicle owner makes a specific request for a court hearing, rather than simply being allowed to lapse after six months.
The motoring organisations have suggested that those more conventional means of enforcement should be allowed to work through before more drastic measures are tried. I have pondered that proposition and come to the reluctant conclusion that the problem is more urgent than that, and that the effects of illegal parking are too severe. We must allow the police the means to do the job.

Mr. Michael Latham: My right hon. Friend has on about five occasions used the expressions "central London", "London" and "the Metropolitan Police", but that is not what the new clause says. Will he make it plain that he has no intention of establishing the system in any other part of Britain? Has he received a request from police forces in other parts of Britain for it?

Mr. Howell: I have not received requests from other police forces and the intention is to designate only limited areas in the Metropolitan Police district where there is widespread and persistent illegal parking. I shall reinforce that point when I deal with the schedules and the method by which designation is proposed, which is by order.
The case that has been made for wheel clamps is strong enough to justify an experiment. I have used the word "experiment" more than once in introducing the clause, and that is very much the spirit in which we are introducing the matter. I have consulted widely and there is substantial support. Subsection 12 restricts the application of the clause to specific areas designated by order. I intend to designate only limited areas in the Metropolitan Police district where there is widespread and persistent illegal parking. The results will be carefully monitored and I can revoke the orders if the experiment is not a success.
It may be that if wheel clamps prove to be effective in the Metropolitan Police district there are other parts of the country where the police should have the option of using them, but the initial trials will be in London. Amendment (a) would prevent the designation of any areas unless the local authority had so requested. I would certainly not expect to make orders without consultation with local police and highway authorities. But the effect of the amendment would be to give the local authority—I am not


sure from the amendment whether it will be the borough or the district—a complete veto over implementation of the power in any area, notwithstanding the views of the local police. I do not accept that that is desirable. Any designation will be by statutory instrument subject to negative resolution, so the House will have the opportunity to consider it.
As this is an important issue and there are worries about the way in which the designations are made, I shall take a little of the House's time in going through the details of the clause.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: My right hon. Friend said several times—I sympathies with his point—that he is putting forward experimental propositions. However, I see nothing experimental in the clause. It appears to be permanent legislation. In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend say that the proposition should be experimental and should lapse after 12 months unless it is renewed by an affirmative resolution of the House? I could go much further if I felt that the matter could be reviewed by the House of Commons after 12 months.

Mr. Howell: I would expect there to be a review after 12 months of the effectiveness of the experiment to see whether it had achieved the right results. As to my hon. and learned Friend's request, I am not convinced that it would be right to put a time limit in the clause, but I am happy to make it clear that there will be a period of about 12 months during which the experiment will run, after which it would be in order for the House to debate whether the order designating their use in the Metropolitan Police district should be revoked. There would be an opportunity for that debate to take place under the negative resolution procedure.
I turn now to the clause in detail. Subsection (1) allows wide discretion to the police to select vehicles for immobilisation. The vehicle must be illegally parked and only the police or civilian staff acting under their direct supervision will be allowed to immobilise the vehicle. There is no intention of immobilising vehicles that are causing danger or direct obstruction to traffic flow. These will either be removed under existing vehicle powers or repositioned, as subsection (1)(a) allows, to a place on the road where they can be immobilised safely.

Mr. James Hill: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House who will be given the authority to do the work of the police? Does he envisage some civilian group concentrated on central London—a traffic warden system or a completely separate body?

Mr. Howell: The position will be very similar to the present vehicle removal system, under which authorised civilians act under close police supervision.

Mr. Hill: Can my right hon. Friend define "civilian"?

Mr. Howell: "Civilian" is defined exactly as under the provisions for vehicle removal, but I shall give my hon. Friend the precise words later. The position is exactly the same as under existing vehicle removal powers.

Mr. Ogden: The right hon. Gentleman said that if the vehicle was causing a dangerous obstruction, it would be removed to another place and there immobilised. At the moment if 1 leave my car in the wrong place and it is removed, a notice is left and I would know where to go

to collect it. How shall I know where to look for m). car if it has been removed to another place and there immobilised?

Mr. Howell: I shall come to that point in a moment. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) that the procedure is the same as that for existing vehicle removal and those who carry out the vehicle removal under police supervision will be authorised vehicle removal officers, just as under the present system for removing motor cars.
Subsection (2) requires the police to fix a warning notice to any vehicle that they have immobilised. The police have assured me that there is very little risk of damage caused by these devices unless an attempt is made to drive the car, and warning notices will be placed prominently. The notices will also advise the driver what steps he should take to have the device removed.

Mr. Roger Moate: What happens if, as sometimes happens with parking tickets, somebody else removes the notice fixed to the windscreen? The driver may then try to drive the car away, causing a considerable amount of damage to that vehicle. Who would be responsible for the cost of repairing the vehicle?

Mr. Howell: It is an offence to remove any such notice. The notices will be very prominently and securely fixed and that is provided for in the proposed legislation. I shall return to some of the detailed questions, including the question of liability for damage, after continuing with a detailed account of the provisions under the subsection.
Under subsection (4), the charge for release will, like the removal charge, be set by order. The intention will be to set it at a level sufficient to cover police costs. 1 expect the initial charge to be in the region of £15 to £20, but a further assessment of current costs will need to be made before the scheme is introduced.
Subsection (5)allows people acting under police direction to assist in immobilisation operations. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test raised chat point. Again, the analogy is with the police powers of vehicle removal, where civilian removal officers ray carry out tasks under the supervision of a constable. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), subsection (6) makes it an offence to tamper with notices placed on the vehicle as required by subsection (2). Subsection (7) makes unauthorised attempts to remove the device an offence. Subsections (8) and (9) are technical provisions to ensure that the police will be able to remove an immobilised vehicle from a road—for instance at the end of the day—and charge the owner or driver under the vehicle removal regulations, notwithstanding that it may have been repositioned by the police under subsection 1(b) before clamping.
Subsection (10) provides a broad definition of immobilisation devices. I do not intend to take powers of ministerial or departmental approval for these devices; they are not mechanically complex, and I believe that the responsibility for assuring their effectiveness and safety is best left to the police. Subsection (11) provides that immobilisation charges will be paid to the police funds. They are not fines, but administration charges to cover costs.

Mr. Hill: Are not those who act under the Diplomatic Corps code one of the worst minorities for breaking all of


London's parking regulations? If the cars are shackled there will be diplomatic incidents and fines will not be paid to the police funds.

Mr. Howell: Diplomatic vehicles have caused and cause problems. However, there is a lot of illegal parking. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that illegal parking extends far beyond diplomatic offenders and embraces many of those who calculate that it is cheaper to park anywhere and to risk a fine than to look for off-street parking. Therefore, the provision will affect many more than merely those who have diplomatic protection.
Subsection (12) allows ministerial and parliamentary control over the areas in which the devices are used. As I made clear, there is no provision for a fixed period experiment, but the powers can at any stage be withdrawn by regulation. I commend the new clause to the House. I realise that immobilisation is not an attractive prospect and wish that it was not necessary. But traffic conditions in central London are now so bad and illegal parking is so widespread, that—in the interests of motorists and those who make legitimate use of the road—it is right to give the police that new power, so that its effectiveness can be carefully monitored in the proposed experimental phase.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Stott: Judging by the number of Conservative Members who rose in their places to speak after the Secretary of State had concluded his speech, the right hon. Gentleman may find it difficult to persuade his hon. Friends about the virtue of introducing the experiment on wheel clamps. Personally, I believe that the Secretary of State has been courageous to introduce such a new clause.
I readily accept that some think that the new clause will be an unpopular measure. Some may well argue that it represents a dimunition of civil liberties. However, I believe that the Secretary of State has grasped the nettle. The problem has caused the GLC great concern. When the GLC was Conservative controlled, under Sir Horace Cutler, it made the same representations to the Government about wheel clamps as it has made under the control of Ken Livingstone.
The GLC and the Metropolitan Police are in absolute accord on this issue. The reason—the Secretary of State did not go into detail—is that there are appalling problems of illegal parking in central London. The scale of the problem is such that four in every five cars parked in central London streets during a normal working day are contravening a regulation of some form or another. These estimates are confirmed by two independent reports which put the number of illegal parking acts per day in central London at about one-third of a million. The present enforcement system is unable to cope with such a rate of illegal parking.
5.30 pm
In spite of increased wages and improved conditions of service for wardens, their strength stands at a little over 1,300. Current regulations make it impossible for warders adequately to carry out their responsibilities with regard to illegal parking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Warders?"]. Wardens—it must be my Lancastrian accent. Even so, accepting that we do not have enough wardens, they issue about 6,000 fixed penalty notices a day. However, even when tickets are issued the chances of evading payment

are high. Approximately 10 per cent. of motorists pay their fines without reminders. A further 40 per cent. do so only when asked for the driver's name and address. The courts are now so clogged up that only 9 per cent. of the remainder have their cases heard in court and pay fines. For a motorist who illegally parks on a central London street with the intent of evading payment, the possibility of being caught and successfully prosecuted for his offence is less than one in 1,000. It is, therefore, not surprising that illegal parking occurs on such a massive scale.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have certain reservations about the new clause. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He is making a case for doing something about the situation in London. However, the new clause applies to the whole country, although the same problems do not exist in other parts of the country. Almost every road in London is a through road. In other parts of the country, in the small and middle-sized towns, we do not have the same problem. If the new clause is accepted, it will apply outside London. There will be no parking on double yellow lines after six o'clock and cars will be towed away. That is not acceptable to the rest of the country. A special Bill for London is required to deal with the problem.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) says that a special Bill is required. Unfortunately, I am sitting on the wrong side of the Chamber to effect such a measure. The hon. Gentleman made a fair point. However, I am making preliminary reference to the problems of London, against which the Secretary of State said the main body of the new clause is directed.
Illegal parking is having numerous consequences: difficulties for local access, lack of short-term parking for business people and shoppers on the main thoroughfares, increased congestion, delays for goods vehicles, disruption of bus services and delays for bus passengers. I am advised by the GLC that on some occasions illegally parked vehicles have delayed fire engines, with disastrous consequences. The scale of the problem has prompted the view that such blatant disregard of traffic regulations is bringing some elements of the law, possibly the more important, into disrepute.

Mr. Moate: If an illegally parked car is blocking the way of an emergency vehicle, how will putting an immobilisation device, a clamp, on its wheels help?

Mr. Stott: I assume that one of the reasons for bringing forward the new clause is to persuade people that it is not in their interests to park illegally. It has a deterrent effect. If we can deter motorists from parking illegally, the difficulties encountered by fire engines not being able to get through to fires will disappear. Therefore, it is worth having this provision in the Bill on an experimental basis. After 12 months the experiment can be evaluated to see whether there has been any marked difference in illegal parking in London.
Hon. Gentlemen who are opposed to the provision, perhaps for very good reasons, must understand that, unless something is done, we shall have a continuing problem in central London. They must have experienced the problem at some stage. One of the ways that the GLC and the Metropolitan Police believe that they can attack


illegal parking is by introducing, on an experimental basis, the possibility of illegally parked cars being immobilised with wheel clamps.

Mr. Rees-Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be good enough to look at amendment (a) to the new clause which states:
(13) The Secretary of State shall not extend this section to an area unless requested to do so by the local authority for the area.".
I understand that that amendment has been called for discussion with the new clause. May we have two Divisions—one on the clause and one on the amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment is being discussed with the new clause. It will be called at the appropriate moment if a Division is requested by the House.

Mr. Fry: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) quoted at length from a document issued by the GLC. There is a further statement in that document:
Clamps would only be used on those vehicles with, say, at least two previous offences.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

Mr. Stott: I assume that that provision can be included in any regulation that the Secretary of State may bring forward. I would have no objection to that. However, on the principle of the new clause, I believe that the House should consider what the Secretary of State said. I thought that he made his case. Something needs to be done about the continuing high rate of illegal parking in central London.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford asked about the effect of the new clause in other places. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) raised that issue with the Secretary of State. I agree that the new clause does not state that it is an experiment. It is not implicit that the Secretary of State wishes to take powers for an experiment in central London only. The right hon. Gentleman will have to make that clear in any regulations that he brings forward.
Our amendment, which Mr. Deputy Speaker has indicated could be called for a Division, would provide:
The Secretary of State shall not extend this section to an area unless requested to do so by the local authority for the area".
The Secretary of State has indicated that he is not keen on that idea. I am informed that the amendment may be technically defective in that, instead of referring to "the local authority", it should refer to the "traffic regulatory authority". If so, that would be a sensible amendment. I do not believe that the Secretary of State should grant powers wholesale outside the capital city unless specifically requested to do so by the local authority and local police forces concerned. If they recommended such action, because they had a similar problem to that in the capital city, perhaps the Secretary of State could issue instructions under the regulations for wheel clamps to be made available in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, initially, the Secretary of State ought not to be given that power, unless it is called for by the local authority.
I recognise that the amendment may be technically defective but I should be prepared to push the issue to a Division to establish the principle. The Bill could then be amended correctly in another place. Certainly as an

individual Member of Parliament, not as an Opposition spokesman, I give the Secretary of State my support for what he is endeavouring to do.

Mr. Michael Latham: I shall make an extremely brief intervention, because I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak. I very much regret that my right hon. Friend has introduced the new clause. It is a totally un-British idea which is highly unlikely to improve relations between motorists and the police. In fact, it is likely to make them very much worse.
Of course we all deplore illegal parking. It is extremely bad, but other parts of the Bill try to deal with the problem of fixed penalties. For three years, between 1968 and 1971, I served on the Westminster City council and we spent the whole of that time trying to get an increase in meter charges through the GLC. Such an increase had still not gone through at the end of those three years, even though the request had been made at the beginning of that period, because of the bureaucratic difficulties that then existed and which, for all I know, still exist.
The new clause certainly cannot be justified on the grounds of improving traffic flow. It is absolutely certain that an immobilised vehicle with a clamp on it will not improve traffic flow. Therefore, the argument is entirely one of deterrence, but what my right hon. Friend is suggesting is a high price to pay.
As several of my hon. Friends have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), the fact that my right hon. Friend gives assurances about what he is prepared to do is not what the new clause says. It states in subsection (12):
This section shall extend only to such areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify".
I envisage the possibility, particularly if the scheme is introduced in London, of these ugly brutes spreading to other parts of the country. We do not want them in Leicestershire. If my right hon. Friend introduces proposals such as this, he will get a pretty frosty reception from Conservative Members. He should concentrate on getting the existing system working properly. He should not bring forward these totally undesirable new powers, which will only add to the poor relations that exist in some areas between motorists and the police.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Reference has been made to the way in which new clauses have be en presented which seek to improve on proposals which were made in Committee.
The genesis of the new clause was a discussion in Committee on wheel clamps. At the outset I expressed my concern at the phraseology. We are no longer talking about wheel clamps, but about "an immobilisation device". I notice that subsection (10) does not describe such a device as a wheel clamp, which my right hon. Friend did in his opening remarks. It
means anything designed or adapted to be fixed to a vehicle for the purpose of preventing it from being driven or otherwise put in motion".
What kind of devilish, fiendish devices could possibly be thought up that would prevent a vehicle from moving?
The House should not be under the impression that it is voting either for or against wheel clamps. It is voting for or against anything that can stop a vehicle from being removed. I have the strongest objections to wheel clamps, but I have even stronger objections to unnamed, unknown devices that might be introduced at a later stage.
5.45 pm
My objection to the use of such devices is that they are unlikely to lead to an improvement in traffic flow. If a vehicle is clamped, it will almost certainly stay in that location for longer than even the "legal" illegal parker intended. That cannot be helpful. If the vehicle is parked in a dangerous place, obviously it should be removed and taken to a pound where it will be protected. If a vehicle is moved from A to B, which happens to be the best alternative space, what responsibility will arise if the car is involved in an accident, is scraped by another vehicle or is found by a different policeman to be causing an obstruction? If a vehicle is parked in a place where it is causing danger, it should be removed to a place where it will be safe and secure until the motorist can reclaim it.
My second objection to the use of these devices is the potential for damage to vehicles. Nowadays many motorcars are fitted with expensive alloy wheels. Some have front wheel drive and power steering. The combination of those and the wheel clamp could result in an expensive disaster if, for any reason, the notice warning the driver that his vehicle had been immobilised was either not seen, not read, or misunderstood. Such a warning could obviously be removed by vandals. If it is stuck to the windscreen with cellotape, it could be removed by rain. If the driver happens to be a foreigner who speaks only Serbo-Croat—I in no way discriminate against SerboCroats—he may assume that it is a fixed penalty parking fine. He may not realise that a potentially dangerous device has been fixed to his car.
I take the strongest objection to the Secretary of State's comment that a clamped vehicle might in some way be an example to others. That used to be said about public hangings. If it was meant as a serious comment, it is not the kind of policy that I wish the Government to follow, especially as we are talking about a delicate relationship between the police and that large section of the public who happen to be motorists.
There is a fine balance in the relationship between the police and the motorist. Although I in no way condone illegal parking or any other kind of offence involving a motor vehicle, I believe that we must be careful lest the role of the police is seen as that of the persecutor of the motor vehicle.
That brings me to my final objection. Under our law, one normally assumes that punishments will either be fixed penalties or will be decided by a court of law. The use of wheel clamps leaves an opportunity for the punishment for the offence to be infinitely varied. If I find that my car has been clamped and I go to the appointed place and ask that it be released, I do not assume that the constable will always be standing there waiting for me and ready to release my car at that moment. I might wait for half an hour or an hour. Let us suppose that I belong to a minority community and I am kept waiting for an hour or two hours. I wonder whether the assumption on some occasions will be that the individual motorist is being discriminated against in one way or another. That seems to be highly undesirable.
The penalty should be fixed. It should be a certain fine. It should not be the case that one person's car will stand there for one hour after he has asked for it to be released, but someone else's is released more quickly.

Mr. Moate: Will my hon. Friend concede that in the first place the penalty can be applied at the discretion of

the police, so that from the beginning there is an element of selection about who shall and shall not be punished for a parking offence?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend's point is extremely important. There will be selectivity between vehicles that are illegally parked and are clamped, and those that are not. It will be a matter of decision by the individual constable. Those who find that their cars have been clamped will point to another vehicle across the road that has not and say: "This is unfair. I am being discriminated against." The blame will fall on the police.
I have always been a firm supporter of police powers, but I believe that when those powers are used they should be seen to be used in the fairest possible way. The introduction of the clause into this otherwise valuable and useful Bill, to which I gave the fullest support in Committee, is a retrograde step for relations with the police. It will not help to solve the problem that has been so graphically described on both sides of the House. Therefore, I believe that the new clause should be withdrawn.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that because one person breaks the law, someone else should be allowed to do so at the same time? I do not know what his experience is. Having travelled on the Continent, I know that the French put on clamps. It is not just a question of paying the fine. People must go to the police station, pay the fine and wait for a considerable period before their cars are unclamped. I am not saying that that it necessarily right. I am not suggesting that people who are breaking the law should not be penalised, or that having broken the same law as someone else they should not be penalised to the same extent as that person. If people break the law, they must accept the consequences.

Mr. Griffiths: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. No one wants to excuse one person from committing an offence for which someone else is being faced with a fixed penalty or is being punished. I am suggesting that the use of wheel clamps implies that that is what will happen. That is one of my objections. Anyone who has experience of parking in Paris will know the ineffectiveness of the clamp that is used in that city. There is still massive illegal parking all over the pavements, day and night.
I wish that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would withdraw the new clause. If not, I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will show their complete disapproval of the measure in principle. I trust that there will be sufficient number of right hon. and hon. Members to give the Government cause to rethink this action, which will undoubtedly damage relations between the police and the motorist for many years to come.

Mr. Rees-Davies: This device is a deterrent. The way in which it is to be implemented is dictatorial. The powers are draconian. The conduct permitted under it, as I shall show, is diabolical. It has no merit of any kind. I shall show an alternative way of getting control.
I shall vote against the new clause. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Scott) seeks to limit the clause to the area that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described as being intended, which is central London. I am not sure what is meant by that, but I think that it means the Westminster city council area. That is more than sufficient for the experiment.
Almost everything is wrong with the new clause, either legally or in some other way. First, it does not convey what it intends to do. It is not experimental. It gives no control over the period. It is not specific. It encompasses the whole nation, when it is intended to encompass a small part of Mayfair—not the City of London, but a small part of the county of London. It is wholly unnecessary for the City of London. It is not necessary in Chelsea, Fulham, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe or Bromley. If it is necessary to take any measures at all, broadly speaking they should be for the environs of Westminster city council.
The first thing that is wrong with the clause is that action to deal with any contravention is entirely at the discretion of the constable concerned. That is wrong. If one is guilty of overstaying one's welcome due to circumstances beyond one's control, one may find that one's car has been imprisoned. That is wrong. If someone has been guilty of flagrant and persistent contravention it may be said that it is right to imprison the car, but it is not.
A newcomer or tourist in London for the first time, with a rented or hired car, and who is totally unaware of the law, may find that his car has been clamped. He may find that an immobilisation device has been attached to it. Under subsection (10), any diabolical invention of the future can become an immobilisation device. The new clause does not describe the device. As a matter of law—speaking under that hat for the moment—it is fundamental that there should be laid down—the Ministry should know this well, and whoever drafted the new clause wants a good first-class walloping——

Mr. Latham: I would put a wheel clamp on the author.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It would be appropriate to put the clamp on the author of the new clause. An immobilisation device means
anything designed or adapted to be fixed to a vehicle for the purpose of preventing it from being driven".
Specific regulations should be laid down prescribing the precise nature of the device. That is important, because the device may be changed and a different one may be put on. We want to know exactly what that device is. That should be for regulation by the Secretary of State.
The same is true of subsection (12), which states:
This section shall extend only to such areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify—
It should be made specific that the measure is experimental, for the purposes of encouraging and considering the matter within an area to be prescribed, which would be stated by the Secretary of State.
6 pm
One of the most draconian and diabolical powers is that it is proposed not to move the car to the pound where the vehicle will be safe, but, apparently, to move it further along the same road or to another one where the immobilisation device can be fixed. That means that the owner of the car will not know to where his car has been moved. It may be in the next road or in any other one.
Owners will report their car as stolen. It will involve an immeasurable waste of police time, merely to track down the police officer who moved the car—if it was a police officer who did. It may be found that it was not a police officer who moved the car. It could be any other authorised person. Subsection (5) allows a constable to authorise another person to take the vehicle under his direction. The other person does not necessarily have to

be a parking attendant. The provision is not limited to one of the civilians who are employed by the police. It is not even limited to a traffic warden. It could be anyone.
It may be decided to immobilise illegally parked cars in the West End. It may be best to employ the AA or the RAC. At least the process would be carried out sensibly. But that is not intended. The person who applies the immobilisation device does not have to be a police constable, still less a police constable in uniform. If the device is applied by someone else, it might be found that the car is moved, but not to a pound.
If a car is moved, but not to a pound, and the vehicle happens to be a valuable Rolls-Royce, there will be an action for substantial damages against the Secretary of State for causing the vehicle to be removed and having it parked in another road. That is in spite of his being entitled to do so. The action for damages will occur because the car is damaged. The action for damages will, presumably, be against the Commissioner of Police if the police authorised the car's removal.
It is the unfortunate police who will get involved in the matter. There is bound to be damage. It will not just he caused by the immobilisation device. A device that does not cause damage can be invented and established—I hope that it will—but damage there will be. If the car is moved and damage is done, there will be an argument about whether the damage was done by a vandal, a thief, the police or by the person authorised by the police to move it. In each event, the arrangement is unsatisfactory.
The next stage is when the vehicle has been clamped. It can then be released only by a constable. Talk of conduct unbefitting a constable or a gentleman! If the vehicle is to be released only by a constable, what happens if it is removed by someone who is not a constable? The owner, therefore, does not know where the car is. The only way to retrieve the car is to go to the police station and get the constable concerned. He must then get his key to release the car. Why should that not be done by the person who authorised the clamp in the first place? The whole matter has not been thought out properly. The last person that one wants to have to release the car is a constable.
I shall pass by subsection (4), as it is the only one with which I have no complaint.
Under subsection (5), we must define much more clearly than has been done, the person who is authorised to take vehicles under his direction. There remains the question of notices for fines and the area involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) said that the clamp and things of that type are not necessary in his charming little town. Nor do we need them in Thanet. We do not have the problem, and are never likely to.
I shall now deal with various courses of action that could satisfactorily be taken. We must establish the problem. The problem is in about 1 square mile of central London. It is a problem of many people deliberately flouting the law and parking cars. Three things can be done. First, we can take the police right out of the matter. Make the people who park illegally pay for it. The police should not be brought in at all.
Secondly, the AA and the RAC should be brought into discussions and a cadre should be authorised by the Commissioner of Police to remove cars to safer places. Thirdly, the cost of the removal, plus a reasonable


percentage, should be charged for removing and impounding the cars. That should be done on a large scale, employing many people who know about cars.
The AA and the RAC should be drawn in. Civilians should be allowed to take over the scheme. The police should not be involved in what is, for them, an unpleasant duty. They have plenty to do elsewhere. I can think of nothing that makes the police more unpopular than their involvement with all types of motoring offences. Perhaps the traffic police could be seconded to a special corps to ensure that the traffic problem in central London is removed. The problem can be solved by taking away, impounding and higher fines.
Westminster city council and others should be told to install more parking meters. In almost every square there are many blank spaces. They should either be resident parking or meter parking spaces.
Finally, there should be a law to stop commercial vehicles and delivery vans from delivering between 10 am and 5 pm. They are the biggest nuisance of all.

Mr. Fry: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that I took a pretty dim view of the Bill on Second Reading. New clause 4 fills me with horror and has my complete opposition. It is wrong to introduce such a controversial proposal at the present stage of the Bill. It is already obvious that there is deep disquiet on this side of the House about it. The matter should have been debated for some time and in great detail. It should not have been produced on Report. I hope that if, by some mischance, the new clause is approved, sager counsels will prevail in another place, that they will throw it out and that the House will have a second bite at the cherry.
I have been a member of the Select Committee on Transport examining the problems of Greater London for about a year to eighteen months. One aspect that the Committee examined was the enormous problem of parking. The main cause of the problem is the failure of public authorities properly to carry out their responsibilities. There is a complete lack of provision for off-street parking. Indeed, policy has vacillated from one extreme to the other. At one point, firms are asked to provide parking space and at another they are prevented from doing so.
The Metropolitan Police are unable to enforce the existing regulations. It is reasonable for the motorist and those who represent him to say that they pay their track cost two or three times through contributions to the national Exchequer. Therefore, it is concluded that he is entitled to some consideration when he must bring his car into central London. None of us wishes to encourage the motorist who flagrantly illegally parks his car. Every investigation of movements of traffic in London, however, shows that the vast majority of people already come by public transport and that, by and large, particularly during working hours, those who bring their cars need to do so. What is the solution offered by the GLC, the Metropolitan Police and now my right hon. Friend? It is the use of an immobilising device that will make the motorist's life even more of a misery. A great many things could and should be done to enforce the existing laws and the existing responsibilities of police and local authorities alike.
I understand the pressure that has been put on my right hon. Friend. Nevertheless, like my colleagues, I believe

that the way in which the new clause has been drafted is totally unsatisfactory. For example, my right hon. Friend talks of an experiment. As has been said, there is no clear indication in the new clause that it is experimental. What is more, all those who made representations about this matter have stressed that it is the persistent offender who should be penalised. There is nothing in the clause to suggest that only the persistent offender will be penalised. Indeed, the only way to discover whether a person is a persistent offender is for the police to check with the licensing department and go through a whole rigmarole which would be very expensive administratively. Moreover, the RAC has made it clear to me that vehicles that are towed away at present have often only just outstayed the time limit on a parking meter, so the drivers are hardly causing a major obstruction of traffic or are guilty of a heinous offence.
Therefore, while I believe that my right hon. Friend was right to consider this alternative, I believe that he should have rejected the Bill as a means of introducing it. Many criticisms will be levelled at him today, and I have much sympathy with him on that score. At the end of the day, however, he will be judged on whether the device will help to solve the problem. So far, I have heard not one word of proof that bringing in such devices, whether they be wheel clamps or anything else, will necessarily improve the situation. Indeed, it has been pointed out that in Paris, where clamps are used, the parking situation is still appalling.
At the end of the day, therefore, my right hon. Friend must prove to the House that, despite the views of the GLC and the Metropolitan Police—incidentally, they are less than encouraging about increasing the number of traffic wardens—this proposal would improve the situation. There has been no indication that the situation would be one jot better—unless my right hon. Friend tells us that thousands of clamps will be used indiscriminately all over central London, but I do not think that he is seriously suggesting that. In effect, he is suggesting that there will be an element of fear, so that the driver may feel that he might be the unlucky one if he parks his car in the wrong place for five minutes too long.
I ask my right hon. Friend earnestly to consider the attitude of the motorist and the trouble that may be caused to the police force. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott), by a slip of the tongue, referred to traffic wardens as "warders". That was perhaps a Freudian slip, as the motorist often feels that that is how he is treated by the local authority. I never thought that a Conservative Government would appear to be following that line.
It is clear that before the new clause is considered it needs to be thought out far more. I very much liked the proposal put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) that far more towing away should take place. The means to improve the situation already exist. We shall not improve it by thinking up and introducing some new gimmick which will merely alienate the motorist.
6.15 pm
The phraseology of the new clause is certainly clumsy. The AA is right to say that the nature of any device used should be laid down in regulations and approved. In another area of activity in which the motorist and the police come into conflict—the use of various devices to check speed—there has been great doubt as to the


efficiency of some of the devices. It would be most unfortunate if immobilising devices led to a further area of doubt about the type of appliance to be used. If my right hon. Friend is to bring in legislation of this kind, there is an obligation clearly to lay down regulations and not to leave the matter to the police.
Finally, if there is to be an experimental area in central London, it should be clearly defined as such. Then, at least, those of us who do not have to live in central London or represent London constituencies would not feel threatened by the legislation.
Therefore, although the Opposition amendment may be defective, I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that it is moved in the right spirit and that the principle is right. I assure him that, unless I receive some very satisfactory answers, I shall not merely not vote for the clause but actively vote against it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: First, I regret that I did not hear the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I had constituents to see and the clause was reached rather more speedily than I had expected. I shall not hold up the debate, as I intend to be brief.
When I read the new clause, I could hardly believe that it could have gone through the Committee. I then realised that it had not been adequately discussed in Committee. I do not believe that it is justified to introduce a clause of this kind on the Floor of the House on Report when it has not been adequately discussed in Committee. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will take it away. I agree with my hon. Friends that it should not be slotted into the Bill at the last minute.
I understand that my right hon. Friend stated that the new clause would refer, in the first instance, only to central London. The emphasis must be on the phrase "in the first instance". It could then be extended to other parts of the country. If the proposal were brought into operation in a particularly bad part of central London, it would be effective in stopping people parking their cars. There is no argument about that. However, as my hon. Friends have said—and I agree—there is surely a better option than this to stop people parking their cars. It is a draconian measure that does not fit Conservative philosophy. Indeed, I find it extraordinary that this proposal has been put forward by a combination of the Conservative and Opposition Front Benches. There seems to be an unholy alliance, and I have a strange feeling that the dominant element in the alliance is Mr. Livingstone and the GLC. That has been suggested more than once. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should not give priority to what Mr. Livingstone wants for central London over the views of Conservatives.
The detail of the clause is quite unbelievable. It provides that the police may take a car and move it from one street to another. What happens if a policeman wants a bit of fun and moves a car from Hampstead to Brixton? It would still be within the Greater London authority. What happens if somebody in Brixton decides to blow the car up or it is involved in a not? Who is to blame? If we give young policemen things to play with, they will play with them.
What will happen if people take their ladies out to a dance or a late-night supper in the West End and park their cars, only to find when they return that there is a clamp on the car because it has been parked in the wrong place? At the moment, police blink their eyes at illegally-parked

cars in the West End at night, but it is doubtful whether they would continue to do so if they had the chance to put clamps on the cars.
The clause provides that the police must warn the motorist that there is a clamp on his car. What will happen if a motorist returns to his car in teeming rain without looking at the windscreen and tries to move off sharply?
I do not want to argue the case on behalf of London. If London wants this, let it bring in a private Bill or ask the Minister to bring in an order. It can then be properly debated. We do not want it in Rutland or Stamford. If the measure is started in London and the opportunity is then given to the rest of the country, police constables will think that it is a good idea. Before we know where we are, it will apply nation-wide.
This is taking a hammer to crack a nut. Unfortunately, the subject of the hammer will be the motorist. The police need the support of motorists. They need everybody on their side. We all want to support the police in the difficult problem of dealing with crime. However, to impose on them another duty, which they will then be compelled to carry out, which will annoy hundreds of motorists who are suddenly caught by a device that they feel is un-British, will not make the police popular. It will not enable them to do their proper job——to handle crime. What will happen if somebody discovers a clamp on his car after the tube trains have stopped running? How will he get home?
I find it difficult to understand why the Minister should introduce this measure. I drive a lot in London. I drive to and from the House of Commons. Sometimes I come in at a busy time in the morning. The difficulties of driving through London are grossly exaggerated. There are times when the traffic is not good, but for a capital city the movement of traffic is not bad enough to justify the measure that is sought to be included in the Bill tonight.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was amazed when I heard the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) talking about the poor tourist who comes here, unknowingly leaves his car in the wrong place and returns to find it with a clamp on the wheel. There is an old saying—"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." If I go to Saudi Arabia, set up my own distillery, start drinking whisky and having parties, I know that I will be in trouble. Therefore, I will not do it. If I do, I must pay the penalty. Britain has laws, as does every country. We may not like them. Many people do not like them. We have laws that have been temporary for 150 years. Income tax started at threepence in the pound temporarily, but we have still got it.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) was right to say that there are troubles and difficulties. However, it is not right to say that there are no difficulties in getting through the streets. There are. Motorists blatantly break the law. They say that it is not an important law, but that is not for them to decide. Those who break the law must be liable to the penalty. That is what I was taught. If somebody parks on the pavement, in the wrong spot or for longer than he should, he must be liable.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am grateful to my namesake for giving me the chance to mention something that I should have mentioned before. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that when this measure is introduced, of all those who


break the car-parking laws in London, it will be the poor bloody British who are towed away while the diplomats——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Gentleman swear?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I think that I understood the hon. Gentleman's point. I believe that I can put it in such a way that you, Mr. Speaker, will not object.
Even if the poor Britisher is different from the poor tourist, they are both liable to the same law. They should both know the law. As a youngster, I was taught by a lawyer that ignorance of the law was no excuse or defence. If one's car is parked without lights, it is no good telling the policeman "I did not know that I had to have lights." There is an old story of a lady being driven home by her husband who is pulled up by the police. The policeman told him that he had been driving at 40 miles per hour, to which the driver's wife responded "No, officer. He never drives at more than 30 miles an hour when he is drunk, and I know that he is blind drunk." If a man commits an offence, he must pay the penalty.
Ask any bus driver, lorry driver or car driver about the difficulties of getting through the streets of London. I am concerned that even public service vehicles cannot get through because people ignore the law. People park where they can see that nothing can get through, but they could not care less. Ambulances and fire engines may have only minutes in which to save lives. People who are going to Harrods or Selfridges could park further up the road, but they park just outside. Then along comes an ambulance and it cannot get through. Something must be done. The present system is not working.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Many hon. Members are asking "What about the diplomats?" It is well known that diplomats ignore parking tickets. If their cars were clamped on every occasion, they would pretty soon take notice.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend has a good point.
I hope that this measure works. I hope that it will come into my constituency. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford probably has not lived in a house where there is only an arm's length between it and the next house, where vehicles are parked outside on the pavement night and day, week after week, preventing children and blind people from walking on the pavements. I hope that this measure works. If it does, I hope that it will be extended. At the moment the law is not working.
You Mr. Speaker, have been a Member of the House for many years. You will know that for 30 years I have raised the question of the road fund licence. Each Government have let the problem go on and on. This Government now say that the situation has got out of hand. The clamp will help. The police will be able to put it on cars and catch some of the people who not only have no road fund licence but invariably no test certificate and/or no insurance, because they go together. Most policemen or traffic wardens take action only when cars have been parked for hours or even days. They will be able to put the clamp on and ask "Where is your road fund licence,

insurance and MOT test certificate?" They will have them for the lot. At the moment drivers take the cars away and dodge the lot

Mr. Cohen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, who always claim to represent the police and law and order, are now asking for the police to ignore the law so as to preserve their credibility? That is wrong, and that is the argument that comes across.

Mr. Lewis: That is a matter of opinion. My hon. Friend is entitled to his opinion. The police have a different task. Cars are now towed away. The police have to find a van which may be anywhere. It takes time to get it, and it is difficult if they want to have an onslaught on one place. Let me make it clear that the elected representatives of the London boroughs and the GLC have decided that the idea is worth trying. I understand that the police have been consulted and I believe that they are neither for it nor against it.

Mrs. Chalker: The Metropolitan Police force has been the strongest advocate in asking for the experiment in a limited area.

Mr. Lewis: I was wrongly informed. I was told originally that the Metropolitan Police force was neither for nor against clamps, but that it thought that they were a good idea. What the hon. Lady has said is even better.
We have to work with the police. If hon. Gentlemen say that the idea is wrong, what is the alternative? People do not pay attention to meters. One sees them feeding meters. I have seen the police powerless to act in regard to many dozens of illegally parked cars.
Some unfortunate chap will be caught, but he will not do it again if he has all the problems that the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West mentioned. If he gets into his car and drives off without having a look—I do not think that he could—it is just hard luck. If he had not been illegally parked, he would not have had the clamp put on. If he comes out from a night club and starts to drive off without looking and damages his tyres, there will be a bit more for him to pay. Once motorists find the cost beginning to mount, they will say "No, I will not do it again; it is too expensive."

Mr. John Grant: This is a problem for London and there do not seem to be many London Members present. Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituents do not want to see the police messing about with traffic offences? If there is police manpower and hours to spare, my constituents want it used to deal with crime and vandalism, and not traffic problems.

Mr. Lewis: I agree 100 per cent., but the House has made a number of laws, rules and regulations which the police have to enforce. They do not like doing it. It is their job. Those rules and regulations are not working and the House has now come along with a new idea, with the acquiescence of the police. It works in other countries. I believe that it is worth trying.
The scheme is to be tried in a restricted area and if it works it will be extended to the poorer areas of London where people cannot get in and out of their houses. I am pretty sure that if those who are fortunate enough to live in Belgravia had cars parked outside their street doors so


that they could not open them, and their windows were blocked, they would be pleased to have something to get rid of the cars.
I support the experiment. I wish it well. If it succeeds, I hope to see the scheme extended throughout London. If we make progress, we shall be doing good to everyone and harm only to the law breakers. They have an easy way out. If they do not break the law, they will not have the clamps put on their vehicles.

Mr. Moate: The essence of the case put by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) is that illegal parking takes place on such a scale that he hopes the measure—no matter how draconian—will deal with it. That is the whole case as put by the Opposition Front Bench and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in moving the new clause.
The hon. Gentleman has the problem completely out of proportion. Of course we know that illegal parking takes place on a vast scale throughout the capital, despite the powers and controls that exist and the vast number of parking meters and the powers of the police to tow vehicles away. I can tell him and any other hon. Member who has not been towed away that the prospect of having one's car removed to a car pound, of having to recover it at a cost of about £36 and all the time that it takes, is a pretty powerful deterrent. If that deterrent does not work I do not know why we should assume that immobilisation will be a greater one.
We are introducing one of the nastiest devices possible, which will cause the maximum resentment and have a minuscule effect, if any, upon the parking problem. I do not believe that we could introduce a more objectionable device or one that will cause more resentment towards the police by the motorist and more resentment among my hon. Friends.
The only speeches in support of the clause have been from the Opposition Front Bench and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is sensitive to opinion from behind him. I believe that he knows what reception the proposition has received. I endorse thoroughly the point made by hon. Members earlier urging him to withdraw the proposition and have proper consultations. My right hon. Friend said that there had been consultation. He may well have had consultation with a number of outside bodies, although I deduce that there has not been a completely favourable response. The Automobile Association and the RAC have been against it. My right hon. Friend did not consult me. I should have told him that I was against it. I presume that he did not consult any of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches because they are also against it.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if he is sensitive to opinion—I know that he is—a little more consultation would be fruitful. I understand that the proposal was not debated fully in Committee——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Only minutes.

Mr. Moate: I understand that it was debated for only minutes, so it was not fully debated.

Mr. Lewis: To be fair to both the Tories and to "Red" Ken Livingstone of the GLC, they held a conference and seminar to which all public representatives, including London Members, were invited. There have been consultations at grass roots level.

Mr. Moate: I assumed that there was some consultation. There was also consultation with the police. But I would have welcomed consultation through the usual channels.

Mr. Lewis: There were such consultations and hon. Members were invited.

Mr. Moate: I was not invited.
The proposal is important and sensitive, yet the new clause was tabled only last Wednesday or Thursday. We have had only a couple of days to consider it, but already much feeling has been generated. My right hon. Friend is lucky that only little notice was given. With more time, I suspect that the opposition would have been greater.
I urge my right hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause to allow further time for consultation and to reintroduce it in another place. The provision could cause great resentment. Only good would be achieved if the matter could be more fully debated outside the House and in another place.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the resentment among people who live in central London over illegal parking? Has he consulted residents' associations?

Mr. Moate: Illegal parking is a vast problem, but the additional power will cause resentment far out of proportion to the reduction in illegal parking that may be achieved.
My limited inquiries suggest that a couple of police vans in Soho or the West End will go around with about 40 clamps. On Saturday nights thousands of cars are illegally parked. Towing away causes inconvenience and resentment, but there will now be a one in a thousand chance that a wheel clamp will be used. That symbol of authoritarianism will be bitterly resented by thousands of motorists. It is not worth it.

Mr. Sheerman: I am not convinced by either side, but why is a wheel clamp more authoritarian than the worry of finding that one's car has disappeared?

Mr. Moate: There is resentment over a parking ticket, and it is even greater if the car has disappeared. Being immobilised causes a sense of imprisonment and would cause much greater resentment. The clamp has been called "Jaws", the "Denver shoe" and other derogatory names. It will cause great resentment and do little to solve the parking problem. We shall not begin to solve the problem until we have a great deal more off-street parking.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I have lived in towns in the United States and, unquestionably, clamps act as a deterrent to illegal parking.

Mr. Moate: Clamps are also used in Paris, which has a parking problem as great as that in London.
The problem in London is massive, with parking on double yellow lines, double parking on double yellow lines and treble parking on pavements, as well. Clamps will not help. Resentment will be caused by the indiscriminate nature of the penalty. One car may be clamped and 30 left. It might take as long as three hours to get unclamped. The charges will cover the costs—at the moment £15 to £20, but that figure will rise greatly.
My right hon. Friend talks of an experimental area and a period of only a year, but the new clause gives him power


to apply the penalty wherever he wishes and for an unlimited period. I cannot see how he can argue one case and yet introduce a contrary proposition. I suspect that when parking meters were first introduced it was only in a small area, but they spread like triffids throughout the land. I suspect that the same would happen with clamps.
I ask my right hon. Friend again to withdraw the proposal. It will do a great deal of damage. Further debate would help. I shall vote against the new clause and for the Opposition's amendment if it is put to a vote. I do not much like it, but it may restrict the spread of a particularly nasty device. I hope that other hon. Members will join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Sheerman: As always, on a non-political issue, my feelings are pragmatic. I asked how clamps would be more authoritarian than towing away. The worst that I can imagine after a good meal, a visit to the theatre or a business call, is to find my car missing, not knowing whether it had been stolen and vandalised——

Mr. Peter Griffiths: The vehicle will have been moved away and clamped, which is two punishments in one.

Mr. Sheerman: We can discuss that later.
Illegal parking in London is so prevalent that it is a danger to life and limb. Accidents, fires, terrorism and other emergencies may occur in our capital city and the services to cope with them cannot get near to the area because of illegal parking.
What is the most effective means of tackling the problem? I have seen the Denver shoe in Denver and wheel clamps in Paris. We have an armoury of weapons to curb this massive anti-social nuisance.
An important point that has not come through in the debate is the key relationship between the offence and the penalty. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) talked about towing away, and the percentage of chances. I know that in another incarnation he is in a business that knows much about percentage risks. I am not suggesting that he is a bookmaker, but he knows something about the percentage risk of a particular incident occurring to an individual.
The percentage risk or the possibility of one's car being towed away is small. It requires a great deal of labour and expensive resources. Wheel clamping is in between towing away and the paying of a severe financial penalty. The only resistance that I have to the Secretary of State's argument is that the law has fallen into disrepute with regard to illegal parking because of the ability to evade the penalty. About 50 per cent. of offenders do not pay the fines.
If that is the case, we should change the law to make it far more effective, so that we ensure that the miscreant pays the fine. We should introduce a more effective system in the fixed penalty system for parking. I know that the Bill tries to do that, but we should have a 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. success rate for payment of fines. If we could have that 95 per cent. effectiveness rather than the present 50 per cent. effectiveness we should have travelled a long way along the road of deterrence.
If people had to pay a sizeable fine—and the fine can be moved upwards severely—for illegal parking, that would be an important deterrent. I should like to see that

tried before the wide use of wheel clamps is introduced. On the other hand, I am open to the view that on a small, experimental basis there is nothing wrong with trying to give the police force the use of this kind of device in certain very specific locations.
Those of us who use central London a great deal know which areas are affected. I should be happy if the Secretary of State could agree to the wish expressed by many hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, that there should be a time limit on the experimental period. I see nothing wrong with the experimental period. I am happy to go along with the regulation as it is, as long as it is effective and carried out in parallel with watching how effective the stamping out of illegal parking becomes when fixed penalties come into operation.

Mr. Hill: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because, as he said in his opening explanation, he has not easily been persuaded to bring in the new clause. I can understand his reluctance. The House should at least agree that whoever has drafted the new clause has included practically everything that could possibly be thought of.
I say this with reservations because as a Member representing part of Southampton I was not privy to the consultations and debates that took place in the Greater London Council seminar. The invitations were to every possible body interested in the matter, and to hon. Members who represented London constituencies. I have no hesitation in giving hon. Members for London the democratic right to determine their future in the centre of London. There is no question in my mind but that the new clause has now been drawn so wide—and this has been mentioned several times—that in subsection (12) the Secretary of State has been given powers to widen the area to cover practically any city in the United Kingdom.
The city of Southampton has no real traffic problems in the centre, and we have little or no provision for towing vehicles away. We have adequate city parking areas and many of our parking meters are unoccupied mid-week. Therefore, there is no reason why I should not vote with the Government on this new clause if my right hon. Friend can make it clear at the end of the debate that it is for an experimental area, perhaps for the one square mile in the City of London.
I agree with the Automobile Association which says:
A device should be used only where the vehicle concerned has a record of at least three unpaid fixed penalty tickets.….The device should be available for use only on the public highways.
The AA, in the paper that I have received today, has made some extra points that have been ignored by the Department. For example, it says:
The type and nature of the device or devices permitted should be specified in the regulations.
However, they are not specified. There is a blanket description in new clause 4, subsection (10), which says:
In this section immobilisation device means anything designed or adopted to be fixed to a vehicle for the purpose of preventing it from being driven or otherwise put in motion.
I suppose that the car could have a telegraph pole tied to it, or be tied to a lampost. It is a wide definition—in fact, it is not a definition by any stretch of the imagination.
My right hon. Friend said that he was after the "anti-social drivers". However, he may also be creating some antisocial behaviour by the drivers. He said that it would be a lesson to other drivers, but I am not sure that that is so. We may extend a certain amount of sympathy to


someone whom we see has this device fixed to the car. However, if we are in a desperate hurry to go anywhere, especially in the square mile of the City of London, we break the law ourselves. There is no substitute for adequate parking areas, decent roads, or for a Greater London ringway that is adequate, so that people do not have to drive from north to south or east to west through the centre of the City.
If the new clause were ever extended to a city such as Southampton, it would be horrific. The people would not accept it. They would think, as has been said several times already, that it was anti-British, and a form of shackling of people's democratic rights. Their democratic right is to park in certain areas. If they park there, they know the risk that they are taking, and it is not the risk of being shackled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, it will not cure the parking problem in London. If the people in the embassies still get away with their illegal parking there will be such a hue and cry from the public that my right hon. Friend will regret every moment that he defended new clause 4.
7 pm
I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear that only an experimental period is involved, that only the square mile of London where illegal parking is so bad is affected, and that there will be no extension of the proposal to other cities. I trust that, when the experimental period is concluded, the findings will be brought before the House to enable hon. Members to decide whether to pursue the matter further or to put it quietly to death.

Mr. Ogden: When the Secretary of State took his courage in both hands and came to move the new clause, there were behind him about a dozen Conservative Members, all straining at the leash to tear the clause to pieces. As the debate progressed, it seems that word travelled around the Palace of Westminster that the Secretary of State was placed in some difficulty by hon. Members on his own side and that reserves were needed. One or two voices have been raised to give the right hon. Gentleman some comfort. I hope to give him some respite from the criticism from his own side.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) seemed surprised to find that there was an unholy alliance, as he called it, between the Front Benches. I do not believe that this is the first time that it has happened. The explanation in this case is that there is a Department of Transport point of view. In the same way, as the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State knows, there is a departmental view about estuarial tolls. Governments come and Governments go, but the custodian of estuarial tolls still tries to get his 50p from those travelling under the Mersey, while elsewhere people can travel free.

Mr. John Grant: This is not simply a matter, I understand, of liaison between the two Front Benches. It is rather a liaison between the Secretary of State and Mr. Ken Livingstone. Does that not give the right hon. Gentleman some cause for serious misgiving?

Mr. Ogden: There are some strange alliances around today. My hon. Friend and I belong to an openly-declared alliance, the Social Democratic Alliance, which, spelt out, is SO DEM ALL. After 40 years of motoring, it seems to me that people regard no-parking areas as admirable places in which to park. No hon. Member has suggested that a

more realistic attitude should be taken about areas that are declared no parking areas and the possibility of more selectivity. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said that the only purpose of the new clause was that it would serve as a deterrent. Why not hang publicly the drivers who commit that offence? The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North is consistent in his arguments. On four occasions during the progress of the Criminal Justice Bill last week the hon. Gentleman voted to hang someone privately. He is therefore consistent in his arguments.
The Secretary of State would do a great favour to the House if he would agree to examine the arguments put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). The proposal in the clause has been discussed frequently outside the House, but the clause itself has arrived at a late stage in the progress of the Bill. I do not like to see the police as prosecutor, judge, jury and collector. I fear that once the device is introduced, the persistent offender will carry in his boot an anti-clamp device. The liability for damages caused must be investigated. The clause is full of practical difficulties. There is need for greater clarity.
Because of those doubts, I am reluctant to support the clause. I think, however, that a chance for the matter to be clarified should be afforded the Secretary of State. I shall not therefore oppose the clause, little though I like it. I support the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott). I hope that the Minister will give some thought to the practical difficulties that will arise and that he will give some assurance that the matter will be examined again in the other place. The clause has my limited support, but the Minister would be wise to take full note of the many doubts that have been expressed.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: There is a need for care when legislation of this kind is introduced. I am reminded of what happened over yellow lines. They first appeared in major cities, were extended into towns, and eventually began to appear in villages, putting village shops out of business. The practice became so popular that yellow lines were eventually to be found in private areas and even within the confines of the House of Commons. We were brain washed by the idea that yellow lines meant that something was prohibited.
My mind turns to those properties in South Kensington where four or five couples might live on different levels of the same property, each owning cars, but with only one frontage to the road. If a scheme is started in central London, does any hon. Member imagine that the council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will not demand the same facility? The process will continue to towns and villages. I should hate the system to extend to Huddersfield. I am sure that its residents share my view.
There is a still greater danger. I have talked of shops seeing their trade destroyed by the yellow line peril. I invite hon. Members to consider the effect on the London theatre and restaurant trade. I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear that the clamp bandits will go home at 5.30 pm and that there is no proposal to pursue theatre lovers and those visiting restaurants. London's West End could be killed stone dead if this experiment is not clarified.
I intensely dislike parking meters, yellow lines and the thought of wheel clamps. If, however, I were clever enough to suggest a substitute, I might be free to criticise.


Therefore, the Government, by the skin of their teeth, will have my support. I wish, however, the Minister to explain in careful terms what he intends over what must be an experiment. I do not want to see this proposal as the first step in a nation-wide clamping system. Politicians are pastmasters at clobbering the motorist. Every piece of legislation seems to deprive the motorist of certain freedoms.
At the same time, there is need to consider the residents. It must be terrible to have the all-day parker who flouts the law in front of their property, with no means of moving the vehicle unless it is towed away. That is a labour-consuming exercise and there are few vehicles available to carry it out. It takes a long time. There is one pound at Hyde Park and another at the Elephant and Castle. A better idea is to provide plenty of parking space in London. The fact that there is not abundant parking means that we are killing our capital city. We must give this idea a try. I hate the very thought of it, but if the Secretary of State satisfies me by his reply, he will get my vote. If he does not, I shall go into the other Lobby.

Mr. David Howell: The debate on the new clause has been a lively and full affair. A great many concerns and strong feelings about the problem, to which the new clause is addressed, and the proposed solutions to it have been put before the House.
The issue has been debated widely outside the House during extensive consultations. Considerable publicity has been given in the national press and elsewhere over several months to the proposal for wheel clamps, in order to attract comment from those blighted by or suffering from illegally parking motorists and those concerned with police public relations.
The issue has been debated in a number of other forums, and, as has been made clear, London Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have been consulted about it. The issue has been before the public and is one to which we have had to apply our minds. That is the background against which the issue comes before the House today.
Although there have been one or two voices of dissent, we are mostly agreed that the central London parking problem is uniquely awful. It can produce serious problems, particularly for the residents, but also for traffic flow. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are taking steps all the time to find ways in which we can improve the existing methods of traffic law enforcement. The GLC has agreed, and the Westminster city council has now proposed, to seek ways of increasing parking meter spaces. I am sure that that is the right way forward.
It is encouraging and right to see more off-street parking, although it must be recognised that in some cases off-street parking is not being used. While all those things have been done and are being tried, the parking situation in central London remains appalling. The view, which the Government support, that a stronger measure is now worth considering on an experimental basis.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed considerable worry about how the new clause will work and whether it will address itself effectively to its aim. It makes a move on an experimental and limited basis in the areas where the existing methods, even though they are

being improved, are not working and where we have to balance the interests of road users and residents against the problems caused by those looking for parking space.
I must emphasise that the new clause is not a solution. Such a suggestion would be absurd. One of my hon. Friends said that this is no solution. That is right. This is not a solution to the parking problem. I suspect that there is no single measure that the House would be prepared to discuss or support that could be called a solution to the parking problem. We are dealing with a complex of needs for urban traffic movement, traffic law enforcement, parking provision and access for those living in central London. A complex of measures is needed. This is just one measure, which is proposed on an experimental basis.
7.15 pm
The question turns on whether the House is prepared to give support to the idea of an experiment and whether my right hon. and hon. Friends feel sufficiently reassured that the proposed powers would indeed be limited to an experiment and would be limited to the area to which I refer—the central London area of the Metropolitan Police district. The intention would be to make designation orders for the limited area within the Metropolitan Police district.
How can my right hon. and hon. Friends have the assurance that they understandably seek—that the limitations will apply? I should like to deal with the area and the experimental and limited nature of the powers being sought.
With regard to the area, I have made it clear—this will be accepted by my right hon. and hon. Friends—that it is the firm intention that the experimental period and the experiment itself should be in designated and limited areas of central London where it is recognised by those driving through it, and, even more, by residents—there are hon. Members whose constituents have made that clear to them—that existing traffic parking provisions are being appallingly disregarded. It is a cavalier and systematic disregard, which leads to drivers collecting enormous numbers of parking tickets.
Even though, under part III, we seek to ensure that the paying of a parking ticket will become less of the almost voluntary matter that it is now, nevertheless the prospect even of that is not likely to deter drivers from continual selfish and cavalier parking.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) has tabled an amendment which seeks a firmer restriction, so that the pilot experiment will be in the limited area to which I have referred. As I made clear earlier, it would be wrong to rule out extension to a local authority area, as suggested in the amendment. I have listened carefully to the debate. I recognise the worries of hon. Members outside London, who rightly wish to see whether the experiment can work and, if it can, to consider whether there might be a carefully considered extension of the powers to areas outside London. That, presumably, is the thought behind the amendment.
I am advised that, in order to remove the defects from the amendment, it would have to be reworded. The amendment would have to read:
The Secretary of State shall not extend this section to an area unless requested to do so by the traffic regulatory authority for the area.
That would bring the amendment into order. We are dealing with issues of fundamental importance which go across party lines and lie outside the usual exchange of views between the two sides of the House. I am anxious


to meet the worries that have been expressed. The Government would be prepared to see that amendment in the form that I have described introduced in another place.

Mr. Fry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been experiments in certain other cities, such as the Collar experiment in Nottingham? It was advocated by Nottingham city council, but was rapidly changed by its successor. If the Secretary of State is to give the right to a traffic regulatory authority to ask for the power, does he also accept that it can ask to have it taken away if it considers the power to be a failure?

Mr. Howell: That would be right. If it is considered that the experiment is a failure after the designation has been made, the designation may be revoked. I draw attention to the wide powers that are available under subsection (12). Those powers, when combined with the 1978 Interpretation Act, allow the Secretary of State to revoke, extend, change or limit any order made for any designated area. I hope that the readiness that I have sought to show to respond to the feelings and worries of hon. Members will assuage some of their fears about designated areas.
The House will wish to take into account the danger of allowing a local authority to veto something that the police force of the area has requested strongly. That will need to be considered by the House when it debates a designation order. However, I do not think that some of my hon. Friends realise how strongly the police have been pressing for those powers.

Mr. Sheerman: It is estimated that there are 17,500 diplomats in London and 50,000 diplomatic cars. Will the Diplomatic Corps be immune to clamping regulations?

Mr. Howell: It will not be immune to clamping. The question of immunity to charges will probably arise as it does when vehicles are removed. The problems that hon. Members have raised about the damage and members of the public telephoning the police to ask where their cars have gone arise from the removal powers. For some years the police have been removing many vehicles. There is an overlap between those powers and the powers that the Government are proposing to introduce experimentally.
Any designation will be by statutory instrument and subject to negative resolution. The powers under subsection (12) will allow the Secretary of State to revoke an order. In effect, they give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a time limitation. Hon. Members have said that they want illegal and selfish parking to be dealt with, and in some instances they are prepared to see the experiment carried out. If we do not have the experiment, how can we know whether it will meet any of the needs to which I have referred? Nevertheless, many hon. Members seek the reassurance that it will be possible to limit the experimental period by order.
I am persuaded that flexibilty on time and place should be made clear on the face of the Bill. That flexibility is available in subsection (12), but if hon. Members feel that it should be made clear on the face of the Bill, so be it. I give the undertaking that an amendment to that effect will be introduced in another place. It will allow a time limitation to be made by regulation—it might be for 12 months—and will enable the provisions in the new clause to be made permanent if the experimental period is

adjudged to have been a success. I hope that that will meet the worry expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies).

Mr. Dickens: Are we talking about the duration of the experiment or the hours during which it will be put into effect during each day?

Mr. Howell: We are talking about the former. My hon. Friend talked about theatre traffic and illegal parking in the West End in the evening. For some time it has been the practice during the evening to remove vehicles that are causing difficulties—for example, blocking other people's cars and generally causing chaos. That practice will be continued. It will be used in preference to vehicle clamping. The police say that if they are given the new power they will not necessarily use it around restaurants, cinemas, and theatres. They say that they will continue to remove vehicles. There are some who regard that as a more draconian and deterring experience than clamping.
When dealing with proposed legislation of this sort, we are naturally worried about police-public relations. I have listened to the words of wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) on many issues over many years. He is especially worried about imposing a new duty on the police. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in an intervention, this is not something that is being imposed on a reluctant police force. The Metropolitan Police have pressed steadily and strongly for this power, over a considerable period. It is something that they want, and they have left neither me nor my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—this applies also to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, many other hon. Members, magistrates and the Government generally—in any doubt that they are anxious to have the power for a limited experiment.
We are not imposing an awful new duty on an unwilling police force, which it will carry out with reluctance and with a miserable feeling that once again it has been thrown into new areas of difficulty with the public. That is not so. Indeed, the fact is very much to the contrary.
This will not be the final say on the issue. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have considered the effect on police-public relations carefully, as well as listening to the views of the Metropolitan Police. The police are faced daily with the need to take effective selective and discriminating action when deciding how parking regulations are to be enforced. They have been dealing with 70,000 offences a year in London by the now well-known means of vehicle removal, which is labour, manpower and police-intensive.
There are those who say that that causes resentment, particularly if people whose cars have been removed have to go trailing off to the pound to find out what has happened, or they ring up the police and say "My car has been stolen", only to find that they had parked illegally and that the car is in the pound. That happens, and no doubt it does involve resentment in some cases, but I challenge those who suggest that such a development has damaged police-public relations in central London. I do not believe that it has.
7.30 pm
Over the years it is has had some effect—though not enough—in deterring wild, cavalier and persistent illegal parking. It has done so in a way that has helped and not


hindered the residential, city, commercial and entertainment life of the capital. The case cannot be sustained that it has damaged police-public relations. On the contrary, the views expressed by London Members of Parliament that it has helped, and that the experimental wheel clamp power would help, are views that we should take into account, even while granting the experimental power, limited to the area that we have discussed.
The effect on traffic flows hinges on the need to restore traffic order and to deter offences. I make no apology for using the word "deter". As hon. Members have said, and as I said at the beginning, it is paradoxical to suggest that something that immobilises vehicles is a device for easing traffic flows. However, it is not the individual use of wheel clamps that improves traffic conditions, although in some cases it may. It is the utterly antisocial behaviour which is deterred as a result. Those are the reasons why I believe that the clause, with the undertakings that I have given about amendments to make absolutely clear——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I ask the Minister whether he knows the costs, or can get them later? I imagine that this will result in a terrific saving of taxpayers' money. We shall not need all these police vans towing away cars. Instead, we shall need just one man with a few hundred clamps. That will save money. Surely we are interested in saving taxpayers' money.

Mr. Howell: I am told that the cost saving, certainly compared with the manpower-intensive business of removing vehicles to the pound, is considerable. Before the Government decided to table the new clause, I checked exhaustively with the police the relative costs of operations of this kind.
Perhaps I should mention diplomatic parking, which causes so much irritation. These clamps will be put on diplomats' cars, and that will cause inconvenience and difficulty. However, when it comes to payment of the charge, diplomatic immunity will remain. Whereas at present diplomats are free from any penalty for a parking ticket and can collect an unlimited number of them, there is no doubt that this clamp will be a deterrent to all illegal casual, cavalier and selfish parkers.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose——

Mr. Howell: I want to complete my remarks, because I have detained the House for some considerable time, and no doubt hon. Members want to get on to other matters.
In my view, this measure will not damage police-public relations. With the undertakings that I have given, I believe that it will be welcomed by the Metropolitan Police, available for use for a limited time and in limited areas of central London. We in this country understandably hesitate to make changes, sometimes even to make experiments, but I believe that it is right to support this experiment and thus support new clause 4, with the undertakings that I have given.

Mr. Stott: I shall not detain the House long, unless I am pressed to do so. The Secretary of State said that we have had a lively and interesting debate. It is somewhat unique for me to come to his assistance with the gusto that I have shown. I do so because I believe that he is right to introduce this new clause. I fully understand some of the reservations that have been expressed by right hon. and

hon. Gentlemen on the Government Back Benches, but they should remember that we are discussing a very severe problem in inner London, a problem that we believe can be tackled only by measures such as the one that the Secretary of State is proposing. It is an issue on which there is unanimity in county hall, where both the Conservatives and my party are in favour of introducing these measures. The Metropolitan Police, as the Secretary of State said, are strong advocates of the use of these powers in a limited and defined area of the nation's capital.
We in this House have a responsibility to those people who govern the nation's capital. We have a responsibility to listen to what they say. They are asking the House this evening to give the Metropolitan Police powers on a limited basis to conduct an experiment in this regard. This evening we have the right to do that. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me the assurance that, subject to the correct wording to my amendment, he will seek to reintroduce it in another place. That may meet some of the objections that have been raised by Conservative Members. That being so, I shall support the Secretary of State in the Lobby, if there is a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

CONTROL OF OPERATING CENTRES FOR GOODS VEHICLES ON ENVIRONMENTAL GROUNDS

'(1) The operating centre of any authorised vehicle under a goods vehicle operator's licence granted under Part V of the Transport Act 1968 shall be the base or centre at which it is normally kept (whether or not it is also normally used from there); and accordingly, in section 92(1) of that Act (interpretation of Part V), for the definition of "operating centre" there shall be subsituted the following definition—
'operating centre', in relation to any vehicle, means the base or centre at which the vehicle is normally kept, and references to an operating centre of the holder of an operator's licence are references to any place which is an operating centre for authorised vehicles under the licence".

(2) The provisions set out in Part I of Schedule (Amendments of Transport Act 1968 relating to operators' licences) to this Act (which establish control by licensing authorities under Part V of the Transport Act 1968 over—
(a) the places which may be used as operating centres for authorised vehicles under goods vehicle operators' licences granted under that Part of that Act; and
(b) the use to which any such centre may be put for authorized vehicles under any operator's licence so granted;
with a view to preventing or minimising any adverse effects on environmental conditions arising from the situation of any such centres or from their use as mentioned in paragraph (b) above) shall be inserted in Part V of that Act immediately after section 69.

(3) Part II of Schedule (Amendments of Transport Act 1968 relating to operators' licences) to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of making amendments of the provisions of the Transport Act 1968 relating to goods vehicles operators' licences supplementing the provisions set out in Part I of that Schedule. '.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this, we may take the following Government amendments Nos. 61, 72, 79, 81, 84 and 85.

Mrs. Chalker: This new clause and the associated new schedule are designed to strengthen the powers of the


licensing authorities to enable them to take adequately into account environmental considerations in dealing with licence applications from road haulage operators. This measure is an important element in our comprehensive approach to the wider problem of lorries and the environment, which has been long neglected.
I apologise for the length of the new clause and the associated schedule, but we wanted to make clear to all the important considerations that are involved for the environment, and to make as clear as can be made in our law those parts of the law to which the operators and others must adhere. We are doing all we can to achieve a more civilised development of freight transport and, with this new clause, to reduce the damaging effects of lorries on people and the environment.
The road haulage licensing system does not currently allow environmental considerations to be taken into account in the granting of licences. But we all know of the widespread concern that is caused by the activities of small operators, often with minimal facilities, whose base is often the roadside or who allow lorries to be parked overnight in residential streets, places for which they were not designed. As hon. Members know, the Road Traffic Act 1974 attempted to rectify this anomaly by providing that licensing authorities should satisfy themselves as to the suitability of the applicant's operating centre. This was intended to cover environmental suitability.
But a ruling of the transport tribunal in 1975 in the case of Cash and McCall vitiated the good intentions in this respect and had the effect of putting environmental considerations outside the powers of licensing authorities. Our intention with the new clause is to try to correct the position.
Clause 49 and schedule 4 contained proposals to strengthen the powers of licensing authorities in this respect. As I explained in Committee, since the Bill was published numerous representations had been made to the Government about the workability and practicability of some of those proposals. In particular, it was pointed out that the concept of an ancillary operating centre would make the licensing system unworkable. It could have meant that every supermarket or high street store receiving regular deliveries from a haulier would become subject to road haulage operator's licensing and that was no part of our intention. Schedule 4 was seriously deficient in some other respects and the new clause and schedule now tabled try to strike the right balance in the licensing system between the environmental considerations that we are now introducing for the first time and the legitimate interests of the responsible, established road haulier on whom we all depend in some way or another. That is what I assure the Committee.
The new clause is short. It redefines the operating centre of an authorised vehicle under a goods vehicle operator's licence as the place at which the vehicle is normally kept. That is in line with the position on public service vehicle licensing as introduced by the Transport Act 1980. It works well in respect of PSVs and we see no reason why it should not do so for road haulage vehicles. The key criterion is that it is the place where the vehicles are normally kept as part of the business of operating, as opposed to the existing definition in the 1968 Act of the place from which the vehicles are normally used.
The rest of the clause simply introduces the new schedule, which sets out the provisions for controlling operating centres for goods vehicles on environmental

grounds. The provisions cover the places that may be used as operating centres and the use to which any such centre may be put, with a view to preventing or minimising adverse effects on environmental conditions. The new schedule differs significantly from the old one in that it does not attempt to weave the new provisions into the complex structure of the 1968 Act. Instead it sets out seven new sections, which would be inserted into the 1968 Act, incorporating the main environmental licensing provisions. The schedule is necessarily lengthy but I suggest that it is easier to understand than the old schedule. Of course, the new provisions must interlock with the existing provisions of the 1968 Act at various points and must remain consistent with them, but nevertheless they represent a comprehensible story in themselves. I hope that by putting that as a completely separate new schedule it will make it easier for everyone to understand and, therefore, for the law to be enforced and adhered to by operators.
The new schedule provides that operating centres for authorised vehicles must be specified in operator's licences. It extends the grounds on which existing statutory objectors may object, including environmental considerations. It also gives owners or occupiers of land in the vicinity of a proposed operating centre the right to make representations against the grant of the application on the same grounds.
The law as it stands does not distinguish between an application for a new licence and one for renewal of an existing licence which is time expired. Because of that, fears have been expressed that responsible existing operators could find themselves faced with onerous conditions, or even put out of business, when their licences come up for renewal because of factors not of their own making and over which they have no control, which may have arisen since the licence was first granted. There will, for example, be cases in which an existing operator who has been long established now finds himself surrounded by a new housing development. The people living in those houses would have known that that business was there. They chose to live there and it would be wrong to penalise the existing operator who was there first.
7.45 pm
Let me make the Government's position on this aspect quite clear. It is no part of our intention that established, responsible road haulage operators should be driven out of business as a result of the new measures. In order to protect the legitimate interests of the responsible operator who is merely seeking to renew his time-expired licence, there is a provision in the schedule that will have the effect of preventing a licensing authority from refusing him a new licence on environmental grounds if there is no material change in the operations to be covered by the renewed licence. Parking considerations will be one exception to that rule. It is one of the main causes of annoyance in road haulage operations and there are special provisions for the licensing authority to consider the suitability of the parking arrangements at or in the vicinity of an operating centre in all licence applications.
Licensing authorities will also be empowered to attach conditions to a licence for the purposes of preventing or minimising adverse effects on the environment where they arise from the use of an operating centre. It has been represented to me that this power could be used to circumvent the protection otherwise afforded by the


schedule to existing operators of the sort that I have just described. It has, for example, been argued that a haulier whose business is in overnight delivery could be effectively stopped by the provision of a new condition attached to a renewed licence that his operating centre should not be used during the night.
That is not our intention. We are aiming to strike a balance between the legitimate interests of the road hauliers and the aspirations of everyone for a better environment. But we cannot lay down blanket considerations for all time and for all circumstances. The licensing authorities must form a balanced judgment in each case. They must act lawfully and take account of the relevant considerations that we shall prescribe in regulations. We cannot tell a licensing authority how to assess or apply the considerations because that would depend on circumstances. But we shall make it very clear that the licensing authority would be bound to take the nature of the business, and the past record of the operator, into account when attaching new conditions to a licence under the provisions of this schedule.
I recognise that some hon. Members have had only a few days to consider the new shape of our proposals, although we discussed them in Committee. We shall be very interested to have the views of the House on our approach. We are satisfied that it will achieve our objectives, but I am sure that it will be necessary to make some further minor changes to the proposals in the light of discussions. I am in no way saying that it is perfect even now, but we have spent much time and energy in trying to get it right. I should also mention that it has not been possible in the time available to include two desirable provisions, which I hope will not prove controversial. We have it in mind that national park planning boards and urban development corporations should be included as bodies able to make objections under the 1968 Act as amended. We also intend to repeal the provisions in the 1968 Act that have been superseded by European Community legislation already adopted in the House.
I am sure that our proposals now strike the right balance between the increasing importance of environmental considerations to everyone's way of life and the business considerations, which anyone in road haulage has to bear in mind in carrying on his existing activities reasonably and sensibly. We have tried to follow closely the recommendations of Sir Arthur Armitage in his report on "Lorries, People and the Environment". I believe that the right balance is being struck by the new clause, the associated amendments and the new schedule. I commend them to the House and hope that they will receive the support of the House.
Amendment No. 61 seeks to remove clause 49, which is replaced by new clause 5. Amendment No. 72 removes the existing schedule 4, which will be replaced by the new schedule. Amendment No. 79 covers the consequential repeals to the Transport Act 1968 in connection with the new schedule on the control of operating centres for goods vehicles on environmental grounds. Amendment No. 81 is a consequential repeal to schedule 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1974, in connection with the new schedule.
The new clause and the new schedule, together with the amendments, will do the job that we have all spoken about, but that has not been effectively achieved in the past. They also put right several small matters. I shall try

to deal with any questions that arise in the debate. We have sought to strike a balance—hon. Members will appreciate that it was not very easy—between the environmental considerations that are important not only in the home, but also sometimes at work, and the business considerations of the road haulage industry. It is a question not only of where road hauliers operate, but of the cost at which they can reasonably operate. If costs escalate, they will inevitably be passed on to the consumer. Nobody wants that.
I hope that the House will give new clause 5 a Second Reading and will accept the amendments and the new schedule.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There will be a general welcome for new clause 5 and the associated amendments. The Road Haulage Association accepts that the suitability of an operating centre should be determined by reference to environmental considerations. Indeed, I am advised that the RHA made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that principle by appealing to the transport tribunal in the case of Cash and McCall. As the years go by, people become more and more sensitive to the environmental considerations attaching to operating centres for heavy goods vehicles and for the road haulage industry generally.
No doubt every hon. Member has received complaints from time to time about the hours that operators work. Depite assurances that vehicles will not return to the depot late at night or go out of the depot early in the morning, it is remarkable how often such assurances are subject to special considerations which seem almost to be the norm rather than the exception. Often, the type of operation can also cause problems. For example, I have received complaints from constituents about the loading of vehicles with substances that can easily be blown by the wind. When a coal lorry is loaded, dust can be blown across the road, into houses and even on to washing in the back green. If the loading of fertilisers is not properly controlled and there is the slightest breeze, dust can be scattered all over the place. On complaint being made, the company and the local authority will give assurances, yet nothing happens.
The same is true of maintenance requirements. Being a maintenance fitter by profession, I fully understand how something can happen to an engine, machine or vehicle that needs to be used as soon as possible. None of us would argue that no maintenance should be carried out after, for example, 8 pm or 9 pm. Circumstances may demand that the work be done. However, over the years we receive many complaints about repair work being done—especially body work, which makes the most noise—until midnight and beyond. Those living in the area may consider such work unnecessary.
I have given a general welcome to the new clause and the amendments, but there are one or two points of concern. How will new clause 5 and the schedule come into operation? Clearly, there must be an overlap period between the passing of the legislation and its operation. Those who have studied the Bill carefully advise me that, from the enactment of the Bill, virtually every operator will be operating illegally, because there are few areas in which conditions of operating are attached to the licence. Perhaps I have misread amendment No. 84. It begins:
A person may not use a place in the area of any licensing authority as an operating centre for authorised vehicles under any operator's licence granted to him by that authority unless it is specified in that licence.


I understood the Minister to say that there would be no difficulty with a new licence because the licensing authority could attach such reasonable conditions—according to the schedules—as are proper. However, I understand that conditions may be attached to the licence when it comes up for annual renewal. If so, whether the period of grace between now and the renewal of the licence is nine months or three months, I hope that licensing authorities that have had difficulties with operators will at least draw the operators' attention to the fact that the law has been changed and that, when the licence comes up for renewal, they might find a condition attached to it unless they put right the cause of the various complaints made over the years.
I do not know how the provision will work, but I hope that such action can be taken during the period of grace. There is nothing in the new clause or the schedule to say when the provision will come into operation. I assume that it will become effective when it has been given Royal Assent. There is always a period of grace to allow people to get hold of the Act and to read it. However, new clause 5 is not like the other provisions, which will not become effective for about two years. Presumably the new clause will apply immediately. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how it will operate and when it will come into operation.
I was worried about the Minister's reference to there being no material change. I understand that that provision is being inserted because the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association have expressed concern that well-established operators who have been in an area for a long time and have caused no trouble should not be penalised. One is always confronted with the classic case of the operator who has been in the area for a long time. Gradually, privately owned or local authority owned houses may be built and may encroach on the operator's premises. He will then find himself subject to many complaints, although the business has been running quite happily for years and has caused no trouble. In these circumstances, local authorities must be allowed to approach such matter in a sensible way. Where an encroachment by an operator has occurred on a housing estate or on residential accommodation, I hope that the authority will use its good offices to try to relocate the operator on an industrial estate where no problem would be caused.
In the majority of cases an operator's business will not be confined to the area in which his premises are situated. For example, one does not have residential encroachment on to a pithead where an operator has been located nearby to pick up coal. Generally, road haulage premises can be relocated without dislocation to the business and without a great deal of extra cost, except for the cost of removal to a new site. One way in which a local authority can remove the nuisance, and at the same time perhaps acquire spare ground, is by relocating the operator on an industrial site—if possible, providing financial assistance towards the cost of the move.

8 pm

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Has my hon. Friend considered that it may not be that houses have been built round the haulage operator's premises, but that the haulage operator, having been given a licence in the first place, has expanded or started to use larger, noisier lorries, or changed the nature of the goods that he carries? Following complaints, the local authority may tell

the operator that it is prepared to move him from the estate to new premises on an industrial estate. However, the operator may say that the rent is far too much and that if he is to be moved, he will require compensation. Does my hon. Friend understand that in such circumstances residents who have been complaining in the past and have not had anything done without what the local authorities call "undue compensation", will now be able to appeal to the licensing authorities so that, when the operator's licence is due for renewal, they will be able to attach conditions to the licence so that he has to put things right or move?

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He brings me sharply to the point to which I was coming. Perhaps my hon. Friend felt that I was moving to it in a circulatory fashion. I was approaching that issue from the point of view of the operator who finds himself encircled and consequently feels threatened. Operators in such a position may need a financial incentive to move.
I was coming to the point about there being no material change. Does this go far enough for environmental protection? There must be many operators—I can name some in my constituency—about whom, almost from the day they were established in the area, there have been regular complaints. I give one example—perhaps not the best—in response to my hon. Friend's intervention. I have constituents who live near to what was once a thriving locomotive yard. It was a junction, with a big loco works, and a great amount of coal dust. The railway business changed from steam to diesel. Then, because of lack of traffic and the unfortunate downturn in the railway business, the depot was moved and a small industrial estate was erected in its place.
We thought that that was not too bad, because we had got rid of the stink from the steam engines and coal dust being scattered over the houses from coaling-up the engines. We thought that at least a small industrial estate would be all right. However, an operator is now using it as a base for fertilisers and coal. Lorries are continually entering and leaving the premises and are regularly "blown down" to clean them. The nuisance is back in a different form.
In such circumstances, where there have been longstanding complaints, it is possible that there has been no material change in, say, 10 years as far as the operator is concerned; but, from the day that the operator began, there was a nuisance which, despite all the protestations, has never been resolved because the operator has never been compelled to do anything.
The Under-Secretary said that, if there is no material change, the licensing authority cannot attach conditions to the licence. I hope that is not taken literally to mean that, if things were bad before but had not deteriorated, one cannot do anything about them. If there have been bad environmental conditions from the beginning, I hope that under new clause 5 and the schedule the licensing authority will have the right to say that if the operator had not handled matters properly the longstanding complaints must be remedied and it will attach conditions to the licence.
I hope that the new clause and the schedule will lead to a big improvement in environmental considerations. All of us are from time to time ambivalent about the use of heavy lorries. We understand the need for swift-moving


traffic. We cannot live without the lorry. At the same time, we are concerned about the' damage that lorries do to the roads. We are aware that noise, fumes and associated works can cause a great deal of distress.
It is not true to say that people choose to live where they do. Often the choice is limited. A person who has been waiting for a local authority house for 10 years might be told by the housing department that a house is available in, say, Smith Road, which he must take, or he will not get another house for a year, or heaven knows when. The applicant visits the house but he may not see the environmental damage on the other side of the road. He knows that there is a lorry depot there, but he does not actually sleep in the house before taking it over. If he subsequently complains, he will be told that he knew what the surroundings were like before he moved in.
I have a constituent who purchased a house near the local authority bus depot. He has frequently complained about unnecessary traffic going past his house. There is a better way in from the main road on the other side of the depot. When I took up the matter, I received the standard reply that he must have known when he bought his house that the depot was there and that it is too bad that buses pass his house at all hours of the day or night. That is nonsense. When a person buys a house he does not necessarily have the money to choose exactly where to live. He will purchase a house in the best place that his money will buy for him. Those facts should be taken into consideration. The individual should never be oppressed by the lorry. If the new clause helps to reduce that oppression, we shall welcome it and give it a fair wind.

Mr. Matthew Parris: May I first express some unhappiness about the timing with which this bundle of new clauses, amendments and new schedule has been sprung upon us? It was not until Friday that I was able to read the new schedule proposed in amendment No. 84, and not until Friday evening that I was able to put together an amendment that I should like to have tabled—and there was little chance of that amendment being called with the timing of the debate this week. I hope that complicated measures that need careful study by hon. Members and by trade associations outside the House can be introduced with a little more warning if possible.
On Second Reading I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether these measures would be retrospective. Relying more on his sense of natural justice than on a detailed appraisal of the Bill he said that they would not. His hon. and learned Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary, now Minister for Health, in replying to the debate corrected that impression and pointed out that there would be an element of retrospection. The Government later promised to try to remedy that and the bundle of measures now before us is an attempt at that remedy.
The measures do not succeed for two reasons. I start with the lesser of the two. Section 69B, subsection (3) of the new schedule deals with environmental nuisance caused by parking. Subsection (4) by inference deals with all other kinds of environmental nuisance. Subsection (5) makes it clear that where there has been no material change in operating circumstances, environmental considerations cannot be used to block the reissue of a licence. It makes it clear that the environmental

considerations referred to are those contained in subsection (4). In other words, parking nuisance considerations can be used to block the reissue of a licence. Indeed, my hon. Friend made that clear when introducing this new schedule.
Parking is a vague word. It does not just apply to the leaving of a vehicle in a certain place for a certain period, but also to the manoeuvring in and out of that position. It can fairly be said in the English language "I drove over the police constable's foot while I was parking a vehicle." Although this may be thought to be a quibbling point, it will be argued extensively, I would say, that 70 or 80 per cent. of a road haulier's operations at his operating centre relate to the parking of his vehicles. Vehicles are parked while being worked upon. They are parked while goods are being taken off or loaded. They are parked while being driven in late at night, and parked when they are started up the next morning. Therefore, the ability to use parking nuisance as a reason for denying the reissue of a licence will be a handle on which any local authority, should it wish, can base the denial of the reissue of that licence.
That is my minor objection, because I do not believe that local authorities will need to use so much ingenuity or reach for that handle. There is a much easier handle that they can use in section 69C, which allows a local authority to attach conditions to the issue of a licence.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) suggested that even where there had been no material change it might be a good idea if local authorities could attach conditions. The answer to that argument is that under this new schedule local authorities will be able to attach new conditions even where there is no material change. The prohibition on retrospection applies only to refusal to issue a licence. It does not apply to the attachment of conditions.
It has already occurred to the Road Haulage Association that a local authority that simply wishes to prevent a road haulier from carrying on business from his operating centre can do so by attaching conditions that are effectively impossible to carry out. It can attach conditions about the type of vehicles that he may use, or conditions as to the hours during which he may use them. It will not be difficult for a local authority that is so minded to close down a business or severely restrict it by the attachment of conditions.
Implicitly, my hon. Friend recognised that fact in her opening speech, when she said that the Government were relying on local authorities to be fair and to take a balanced view. Most local authorities will be fair and take a balanced view, but not all. For example, members of the GLC are on record as saying that they do not want any lorries beyond a certain size coming into the Greater London area.
I am particularly worried about my hon. Friend's remarks about the national parks. A local authority has a duty to weigh the arguments in favour of the operator and those in favour of the environment and to take a balanced view. It may or may not do so, but clearly it has a duty to do so. The national parks have a different kind of duty. If I were the director of a national park, my fair aim would be to try to encourage road hauliers not to operate from within the national park. My view would be that it would be better if operating centres were situated around the national parks rather than in them. I would be right to use my influence to try to encourage operators to move their business from within the park and to go into areas around


the park. It would not be wrong for a national park operator to take that view, but it would be wrong for the Government to give the national parks the right to impose their views in such cases. I do not think that a national park can be expected, or relied upon, to take a balanced view.
A lot has been said against lorry drivers and the operating centres. As a result, hon. Members have ignored the contribution that the smaller lorry businesses make to the economy and commerce of an area. They have also not taken account of the services that they provide and the contribution that they make to employment. It is not right to suggest that the Road Haulage Association is happy with these measures. It is quite clear that it is not happy that the element of retrospection has effectively been removed.
For all those reasons, I believe that the element of retrospection remains. I shall not make a long speech of a jurisprudential nature about why retrospection is wrong. It is not always wrong, but when someone has set up a business in good faith and it is operating, we should think carefully before removing or qualifying that permission.
There are many houses that should never have been built, but we would not contemplate withdrawing planning permission and suggesting that they be razed to the ground. Many lorry businesses should never really have started up where they are, but we should think carefully about trying to drum them out of town. I am afraid that these measures will give authorities that are so minded the opportunity to drum such operators out of town.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that, so far as I can see, nothing in this bundle of amendments affects the operator's right of appeal under section 70 of the 1968 Act. I take his point that a licensing authority might be unreasonable in the conditions that it lays down, but there is always the right of appeal. I do not believe that there is retrospection in the sense mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that what he is really talking about is the attachment of new conditions.

Mr. Parris: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There is always a right of appeal. However, I am always unhappy about legislation that is likely to give rise to many appeals and that leaves with future Secretaries of State effectively policy control over how they decide those appeals.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said, the most civilised option of all is to persuade a lorry operator to move his business to a place where he will cause less environmental nuisance. That is the civilised option wherever possible. But I take my own constituency of West Derbyshire, part of which is a national park, as an example. There is nowhere else for lorry operators to go. I know that if the local authority could suggest another site, many of those lorry operators would happily move to it. Unhappily, there is no such other site, and I believe that similar conditions will obtain in many other parts of the country.

Mr. John Farr: I welcome the new schedule, the new clause and the deletion of clause 49. However, I should like to raise two matters that affect my constituency. The first—and the amendments that we are now discussing will help in this case—relates to a large bus company which exists cheek by jowl with a number of long-established residential houses and which in recent

years has been used by an increasing number of buses because of the closure of depots elsewhere. I hope that this group of amendments will make it possible for local residents to have more defences against the filth, noise, dirt and general misery of life resulting from the activities of these vehicles.
I have been in touch with the chairman of the National Bus Company as well as with the local authority ir, an endeavour to secure adequate sound-proofing of the windows for residential houses, but without success. I hope that in some respects the Bill will make life easier for local residents affected by a noisy, dirty and busy garage of this nature and a little harder for bus companies such as the NBC to pollute the district in the way that they are doing.
My second point relates to a properly licensed heavy lorry depot in my constituency which is not in receipt of local authority planning permission.
There are six pages in the new schedule which the House will approve in due course. There is a great deal about the responsibilities of the licensing authority to establish environmental need, consider the environmental impact, and so on, but nowhere is there any reference to the view of the local authority.
I wonder how the vehicle licensing authority will establish whether premises are unsuitable on environmental grounds. The licensing authority may be an expert in that area, as in many other areas, but I should have thought that, on environmental grounds, the people who should decide matters in the interests of the local residents are those in the local planning authority. At the least, surely their opinion should be asked. I have just picked up a copy of this group of amendments, but nowhere in the several pages of the new schedule do I see any reference to the opinion of the local planning authority being sought, which is essential.
Section 69E states that residents will be notified of an application by an insertion in a local paper circulating in the district. I wonder whether that is adequate. In most districts there are a couple of local papers, one an evening paper and one a weekly paper. At a little extra cost, but at the same time providing a great deal of additional reassurance to local inhabitants, all the local papers in the district should have that insertion.
What happens when a goods vehicle operating centre is not in receipt of planning permission, yet has the necessary licence from the licensing authority? In the case that I have in mind a great deal of difficulty has been caused because the company received consent from the local planning authority only for the use of light vehicles, yet vehicles of all sizes are being operated from the depot, which is causing much concern and is against the intentions of the local authority.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that while planning permission is perhaps not absolutely necessary for any existing licence, where new licences are brought into effect, or are applied for, the relevant planning permission from the local authority should be synonymous with an application to the licensing authority, or at the very least the opinion of the local planning authority should be requested so that the views of residents in the district who are most affected are properly considered at the right time.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall do my best to deal with all the comments that have been made by hon. Members and my hon. Friends in this short debate. I shall deal with them in the order of the questions asked.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) felt able to give the new clause a fairly warm welcome. He asked about the coming into operation of new clause 5. I refer him to clauses 57(2) and 57(5). That part of the Bill cites the coming into operation of the Bill as an Act of Parliament. Under subsections (2) and (5) the hon. Gentleman will find everything that is necessary to take us through a transitional period and to allow us to bring in the new provisions on operators' licences as smoothly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the new applicant for a licence would be covered by the new provisions. That will be good. For people who have a time-expired licence, it may come up after a year or a longer period. While I am sure that everything will be done to bring the provisions of the new Act to the notice of operators whose licence period is not time-expired, I undertake to bring them within the scope of the Act only when the licence comes up for time-expired renewal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North referred to material change. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) also intervened in the debate. I accept that people would like to see material change defined specifically, but it is not possible, even with the most formidable team of parliamentary draftsmen, to think of all the possible scenarios. We have already had four or five examples. I could add examples from my area, where I know there have been problems. To put all that into law would give us a major problem.
Therefore, the new provisions, particularly in the new schedule, do not attempt to define the concept precisely. I was at pains to say that we felt that it was better to leave the judgment to the licensing authority, which will be best placed to take account of all the facts with which it is presented in each case.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South gave an example which would mean that there had been a material change with regard to the new provisions. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North also gave such an example. In both cases there would have been material change, as far as one can judge. There may be mitigating circumstances, but there is the appeals system under the 1968 Act. Therefore, it is important that we get the judgment about material change into law, albeit we are dependent upon the licensing authorities for the operation of that.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North talked about the need to mitigate the environmental problems being caused by an existing user, even if no material change is proposed. I know that it is complicated and long, but if the hon. Gentleman reads section 69C he will find that the point is covered. The environmental problems are to be mitigated by an existing user even if there is no material change.
That is one of the reasons why the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association advised hon. Members that there should be an amendment to take account of it. We do not need that amendment. As ever, however, we shall have a further look at section 69C to

ensure that we can cope with the mitigation of environmental problems that are caused by existing users even where there is no material change.
8.30 pm
I now come to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris). I shall deal first with the timing of amendments. We tried to achieve a three-week gap between the ending of the Committee stage and Report. We have just managed that. Throughout the time when we discussed possible changes to the original clause and schedule and now, there has been continuous consultation. I am sorry that it was not possible to table new clause 5, the amendments and the new schedule before the end of last week. I understand that that was done on Thursday, if not Wednesday. We wanted to take into account the very interests of which my hon. Friend spoke. We have a fair balance, although I make it clear that some minor adjustments might still be outstanding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West, dealt with retrospection. We now have a remedy for it. I am sorry that I cannot agree that we have failed to do so. In tackling the new schedule we have tried not to go back for the existing haulage operator, but to show that if there has been a material change between the operation under the existing licence and the application for the renewal of a licence on the expiry of the time clause on the existing one, the provision can be used only in those circumstances.
I said that there was a need to mitigate the environmental problem. We have tried to cope with the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) described. That is when a problem which has already occurred grows up between the time of the original granting of the licence and the application for renewal and has not been coped with by the other planning considerations. I shall return to that.
It is important that we judge the licensing authority and the local authority separately. The licensing authority operates the licensing system that permits the vehicle operator to operate. A local authority has the power to object to the licensing authority about the operation. Local authorities are often one of the objectors when an existing vehicle operator puts in for a renewal of his licence. The local authority also has an important part to play in planning approval.
I was concerned to hear the case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough about the depot for heavy goods vehicles which he said had recieved permission only for the use of light vehicles but was now using heavier ones. If that change has taken place, it is -material. If planning approval is lacking for the type of trade now being carried out, the licensing authority will be able to take account of that when considering the licence application. If planning approval is already present, it can still be taken into account when there is material change. The Bill is, therefore, a step forward to deal with the problem that my hon. Friend raised.

Mr. Parris: It would be helpful if my hon. Friend would make it clear, as I think she implies, that if a local authority used the power to impose conditions upon an operator effectively to prevent him from carrying on his operation or to make it impossible for him to continue in business in the way in which he previously had, that would be an abuse of the powers offered under section 69C.

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend refers to the misuse of powers in section 69C, which I suppose in some circumstances could occur. Indeed he cited one particularly notorious authority. I believe, however, that if there were an attempt to misuse the powers of section 69C, that would be taken into account by the licensing authority when the application for relicensing the vehicle was heard. That is separate from the local authority's role, which would be to make its objection. Under other Acts of Parliament, the local authority could object to the use of land, but that would be a matter for the local authority planning committee, whereas here we are dealing with the licence to operate heavy goods vehicles.
My hon. Friend referred to an amendment in his name which, due to the complications of the schedule with the new clause, was starred and therefore not moved. He wished to prevent the refusal of a licence on grounds of parking if the applicant could show that granting the application would not result in a material change of an operating centre or its use. My hon. Friend's amendment would have created a slight inconsistency, however, as under subsection (3) of section 69B the licensing authority could refuse a licence on the ground of parking even if there had been no material change.
As we know, parking is one of the main causes of annoyance when it occurs in the wrong place or at the wrong time. I accept that 70 per cent.—I believe that that was the figure that my hon. Friend gave—of a road haulage operator's business may be concerned with static parking and deparking, as I believe it is called in other countries. If there is to be a vast increase in the number of vehicles parking and unparking, or a great deal of moving about, I think that there is a material change. I think that that was my hon. Friend's concern. The important point here is that we want special conditions for the licensing authorities to consider the suitability of all parking arrangements "at or in the vicintiy" for all licence applications. The new shedule is designed to provide quite widely for the very instance that my hon. Friend cited.
I know that the industry sees a need for special parking arrangements. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said, sometimes the provisions do not cover vehicles being loaded with a fine-grained material which may blow about. In one such instance in my constituency the local authority made it a condition of planning permission that the operation of loading and unloading these parked vehicles should happen in closed conditions so that material was not blown about to the annoyance of nearby residents.
That was under local authority planning acts, not under the licensing proposals. As the two are so closely interwoven, however, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that, in one way or another, the considerations that he has raised and his wish to ensure that the smaller road haulage businesses are not unreasonably affected by the environmental considerations will be catered for, not only by the provisions of the new clause, the schedule and the amendments, but by the other laws under which the local authority operates and the appeal procedures that have operated for a long while but which do not cover the environmental considerations that we are discussing.
The conditions about which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West was worried could not be imposed so as to be inconsistent with the granting of the licence. I am assured that the provision contained in the

schedule, combined with the local authority planning laws, means that there cannot be the inconsistency of which he spoke.
If everything goes wrong for the small haulier, his appeal is not to the Secretary of State. It is not to a political body or person, but to the Transport Tribunal and then, perhaps, to the High Court for a judicial review. It is outside political consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough asked about the increased number of buses using a depot. I am sorry to tell him that buses do not come within this provision. It may be that the provision can be extended to cover bus depots. We are dealing specifically with heavy goods vehicles and the loading of road haulage vehicles.
My hon. Friend also asked about local planning authorities. The link for which he was asking with the planning system, which stands side by side with the licensing system, might complicate the issue further. Once there is planning permission, or existing rights, the intensity of the use of the site will be a matter for the licensing authority's consideration in the issue of the licence to the vehicle operators. I do not think that there are any conflicts with the planning system, but I shall reread with care what my hon. Friends have said and take the view of the Department of the Environment.
In my haste to dispatch this group of amendments clearly, I omitted to mention amendment No. 85. In one sense it is a minor amendment to the title of the Bill, consequential upon the new clause and schedule. Although it is a formal amendment, without it we would be lost. I hope that hon. Members will realise that I intended to refer to amendment No. 85 in the long list that I read out.
The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North and for Sunderland, South raised the question of no material change in the operation. I have already referred to the instances that they gave and said that in both cases there would be a material change. Even in the case of a new development around the existing operator centre, where the operator is not responsible for the nuisance that he may be causing to the surrounding houses, I do not think that it is unreasonable to suggest that ways should be sought of gradually reducing the level of nuisance.
The nature of the business and new developments in technology which may be appropriate should be taken into account. However, conditions that materially affect the operation of the business, or prevent its being carried out, would be inappropriate and open to challenge at a higher level. Therefore, in drafting the regulations under the Bill we shall seek to ensure that the provisions are not open to abuse.
8.45 pm
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) asked about relocation on new industrial sites. Many local authorities seek to do that, because in recent years they have become much more conversant than hitherto with the setting up of separate industrial sites. That is a matter for them. The powers in section 69C are there to try to mitigate an environmental problem even where there has been no material change. It is a sensible move in favour of the people whose homes are there. The changes in our society and the increased pressure for environmental considerations to be taken into account make the whole package sensible.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West that I do not believe that the powers in the new clause


and schedule will harm the small lorry's contribution. He did not want the national parks planning board to impose its views. It will have the chance to object, which it does not have now, but it is still up to the licensing authority—an independent body—to decide whether that objection should be upheld. The smaller road haulage businesses which make a large contribution to our society and to keeping down of the cost of goods, will welcome the sensible balance between environmental considerations, which every household has the right to hope and work for, and the economic considerations, which we must be mindful of in the operation of the road haulage business. I hope that the House at the right time will give the new clause and eventually the amendments to the Bill and the new schedule a fair wind.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF PEDAL CYCLES AND EQUIPMENT

`The Secretary of State may make regulations generally as to the use of pedal cycles on roads, their construction and equipment.'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause gives the Secretary of State for Transport power to make construction and use regulations for pedal cycles. It is not clear from the construction and use regulations that they apply to other than motorised vehicles.
The United Kingdom bicycle industry has for a considerable time been involved in the formulation of voluntary bicycle safety standards, both nationally and internationally, with some success. That has resulted in the publication of the international standard ISO 4210 entitled "Safety Requirements of Bicycles". That was followed in November 1981 by British Standard 6102, which is virtually the same as the international standard except in one significant respect. The British braking standard is much higher than the international standard. A braking distance of half that of the international standard is specified in the British standard. That has been made possible by research and development work on brake block materials in this country.
The Department of Transport, in its consultative document, invited comments on the desirablility of having construction and use regulations. In January 1982 a cycling policy statement was issued by the Secretary of State for Transport which stated that the consultations had produced a response which indicated the regulations that were required and that the Department proposed to proceed with draft regulations that would make it an offence to supply a bicycle that did not comply with prescribed standards and was not so marked.
If the Department drafted regulations, it would have a number of significant benefits. The only objection of which I know, raised by a representative of the Department in consultation on the making of regulations, relates to

reflectors. Part 1 of the British standards refers to a reflector specification to appear in part 2. That has not yet been produced. Apart from that, I see nothing in the standard to prevent it being used straight away.
Considerable progress has been made. The proposal would have support from the industry and responsible bicycle interests. On Britain's crowded roads cyclists face enough danger without the added danger of having to cope with a poorly manufactured or badly adjusted machine. The proposal would prevent the importation of bicycles that were not up to standard. That would be welcomed by the hard-pressed British industry. It would also meet the only other serious complaint that I have heard voiced—that bicycles supplied through mail order or big stores are not necessarily adjusted to safe conditions. Bicycle use and construction regulations would deal with all that.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I strongly support the new clause for two reasons which arose locally, but which have broader national implications.
This year a number of cases have been reported in the local press of bicycles suffering serious structural damage while being ridden in the street. In both cases of which I know, they were imported, folding bicycles, which need to be carefully made. Sudden fracturing of the frame causes serious injury. The situation is not uncommon throughout the country. Stricter standards of manufacture must be applied.
The inclusion of the new clause in a Transport Bill will remind people who use bicycles that they are a form of transport and not simply playthings. In my city bicycles have risen in popularity since the increase in the cost of fuel. We have a new generation of cyclists who do not follow the traditions of those who used them as transport to work in the 1930s and 1940s. This new generation of cyclists see bicycles simply as fun instruments. They use them recklessly, ignore one-way street regulations, sometimes ride across pavements, and have little concern for pedestrians. It is clear that the riders do not recognise that they are road users in the sense that a vehicle operator is a road user.
Therefore, I welcome the new clause on two grounds. First, if it gives us the opportunity for safer bicycles on the roads, that will be of great and immediate advantage. Secondly, I trust that it will remind bicycle owners that they are road vehicle users and are subject to the law in the normal way.

Mr. Sheerman: I support the new clause in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). It is embarrassing that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and I have agreed on so many things in the Bill. I am sure that we shall disagree on many others, but he is right when he says, with my right hon. Friend, that this is an important new clause. I hope that the Government will see their way to accepting it.
I came across the importance of the need for such a clause when examining accidents that occur to children on bicycles. There was, as the House will recall, a fashion for bicycles for children in the 1960s. During that period, and since, there have been a number of serious injuries to children, not because of the dangers of riding on public roads—which is dangerous enough—but because of the construction of many of the bicycles. Bicycles that looked sporty and exciting were designed in such a way that they could cause severe injuries.
I have spoken to a large number of surgeons, who have told me about injuries to small boys, in particular penis injuries, which are well known, and have been well documented in many hospitals. They were injuries that would affect the life of the child from then on, and they have been examined carefully by the Child Accident Prevention Committee. The design of some bicycles is appalling. For example, models of "chopper" bicycles were designed actually to chop, even in small accidents.
The design of bicycles is a very important matter and I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North about collapsible bicycles. Some of the cheap versions imported from Third world countries that have come to my notice can be dangerous when there is only a slight collision. I support the new clause wholeheartedly because of the serious damage that has been caused to a large number of children and adults.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I remind the House that on 1 April the Friends Of The Earth sent a telegram to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport congratulating him on preserving wildlife in our inner cities. They pointed out that potholes now play a vital part in preserving flora and fauna, and that there is one pothole in Soho that is so large that it has become a habitat for mice and other rodents. There are others in other parts of the country that are of sufficient size for rabbits and badgers.
I add my congratulations to the Minister on his efforts in preserving wildlife, but I am sure that he will agree that it is as important to preserve human life. Last year 19,252 cyclists were injured on the roads. Of those, 5,234 were seriously injured and 302 were killed. Some of the cyclists who met with accidents were pedalling on cheap, nasty, unsafe, imported bikes that should not have been on the road. The bikes were bought from garage forecourts, supermarkets and on a cash-and-carry basis through send-away brochures.
The flood of foreign imports from Yugoslavia, Poland and Taiwan now accounts for 40 per cent. of sales in the United Kingdom. A growing number come from the East. The price of cheapness has been component failure. One must ask how many of those who have been maimed or killed were riding imported bikes with chains that fly off when one is pedalling, with brakes that disintegrate when they are applied, with saddles that twist when one turns a corner, with frames that warp and with front forks that sag.
Cheaply and badly make bikes might be acceptable if we had properly maintained and surfaced roads and an integrated transport policy. That is not the case. There are roads with dramatic potholes. If these unsafe bicycles are to be allowed into the country, it is important that we have roads and a policy that can cope with them. The Friends Of The Earth have recorded 100,000 commuter cyclists coming into London every day because of the expense of public transport. Without efficient transport segregation and using these dangerous bicycles, they are extremely vulnerable.
Unless we find a means of raising the social esteem of being seen on a bicycle and unless it can be made safer and part of a national transport policy, it will not be treated as a serious means of getting around. In turn, this means that local authorities and the Government will not treat cycling safety as a matter of serious consideration.
The cavalier attitude of many planning officers and county engineers in failing to provide facilities for cyclists

has not helped, and the number of those injured and maimed has increased. Instead of waiting for the planners, which is like waiting for Godot, the Government should perhaps support the new clause, which would make cycling safer. To insist on minimum standards and to ban unsafe bikes being imported into this country would render a great service, not only to cyclists and pedestrians but to the public at large.
Hon. Members will be familiar with the research that Raleigh Industries have completed with Fibrax to develop a new brake block that will improve braking in wet weather by up to 50 per cent. This is but one of the many imaginative efforts by British cycle manufacturers in carrying out research to provide greater cycling safety. It is essential, if they are to continue this work, that they are not browbeaten by cheap imports. To sell bikes at those prices would allow no profit for essential research.
We wish to protect the cyclist. By supporting the new clause the Government can be certain that they will be providing minimum standards of manufacture that will give the cyclist increased protection and increased safety on the busy roads of this country.

Mrs. Chalker: I welcome the short debate provided by new clause 6. It is most important that we take every possible step to improve the safety of bikes on our roads. It is also most important that we bring within British Standard 6102 the requirement for reflectors and other parts of the bike. I would, however, point out that British Standard 6102 is already fairly extensive and that some of the matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) about sharp edges and other aspects of bikes are already included in the standards.
The Government fully recognise the vital transport facility that bicycles now provide for many people. As the House knows, an important policy statement was made by my predecessor in January of this year which set out present and proposed Government action to encourage cycling. Alongside that must go the scrutiny of bicycles imported into Britain, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs is doing. I know of the concern that has been expressed about bicycles that come from abroad. In early June, I shall meet the National Association of Cycle and Motorcycle Traders. I am fortunate enough to have its vice-president in my constituency, who supplied me with my latest bike.
With one exception, I have nothing but sympathy with the new clause. The exception is that we do not need it at present. I say that advisedly because I would not have known but for the increasing interest that I now take in the law of cycling as opposed to actual cycling. I find that under the Road Traffic Act 1972 there are already powers for my right hon. Friend to make regulations relating to the construction and equipment of pedal cycles, their brakes and lights and to their use on the roads. The powers relating to brakes and lights have already been exercised.
Additional powers, including powers to require markings, exist in the Consumer Safety Act 1978. We need to ensure that we use existing powers. The need to use such powers has been pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the House in this short but important debate.
I ask the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) to withdraw the new clause on this occasion, given my determined intent to utilise, where reasonable


and in the interests of safety the existing powers that are already on the statute book and to which we do not need to add. Although I have replied briefly to the debate, we have a high regard for policy on cycling and for the safety of cyclists. Whether if be asking cyclists to think about other road users, and asking other road users to think about cyclists or whether it be improving the large holes mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) I can assure the House that I shall do my best to see that the Road Traffic Act 1972 is used to put right some of the criticisms that have been growing in recent months. Those criticisms will be put to me at the meetings that I have already arranged with cycle traders, friends of cycling and other groups that have the best interests of cyclists at heart. I hope I have them at heart too. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause because I intend to do what he wants me to do, anyway.

Mr. Booth: Where in the 1972 Act is there a construction and use provision that covers pedal cycles? The construction and use section, section 40 does not refer to pedal cycles. It gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations with regard to the use of motor vehicles.

Mrs. Chalker: It might help the House if I refer the right hon. Gentleman to section 66 of the Act in which, I am assured, we do have the power to do what he wants us to do.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. Section 66 does not appear wide enough to cover the British standard. As the hon. Lady has said, the British standard has yet to be extended although it is a considerable piece of definition on the safety of bicycles, as anyone who has studied it will see. However, if the hon. Lady is giving an assurance that section 66 is wide enough to bring construction and use regulations within the British standard and permit a part II to be framed, that will be a considerable step forward. I shall take the hon. Lady's advice on that matter.
I urge the hon. Lady to accept that we should not delay in the making of a part II of the British standard before proceeding. Part I covers a range of important safety issues and, on the narrow issue of defining effectively the type of reflectors that we want, we should not delay in making regulations. That is a matter of judgment but I hope that the hon. Lady will respond to it. If she will give us a satisfactory assurance and say something about proceeding with construction and use regulations on matters agreed to and covered by part I, and not delay that by protracted consideration of the contents of a part II of the British standard, it will be unnecessary to press the new clause. I recognise the simplicity of introducing a construction and use regulation that merely states that any bicycles used on British roads shall accord with BS "X". That is obviously a simple thing to do if the British standard lends itself to that. However, there is no reason why it should be done in that way and there is no need to delay the introduction of agreed standards.

Mrs. Chalker: In section 66 (1) (c) there is a specific reference to the equipment that comes within the section—for example, lighting equipment and reflectors I hope that that, taken in conjunction with the Consumer

Safety Act 1978, will meet the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I see no reason to delay the introduction of part II. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she has said and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 7

PERMITTED DRIVING TIME AND PERIODS OF DUTY FOR PART-TIME PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLE DRIVERS

'(1) This section of this Act shall have effect with a view to securing the observation of proper hours of work by any person, engaged in the carriage of passengers by road, who is in full-time employment in an occupation other than as a public service vehicle driver (in this section referred to as "a part-time driver").

(2) A part-time driver, engaged in operations under the relevant transport regulations—

(a) shall not on any working day drive a vehicle or vehicles for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than one and a half hours and on any two working days to more than two and a half hours in the course of any consecutive seven days;
(b) shall not, on any one day when no other employment is undertaken, drive a vehicle or vehicles for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than eight hours;
(c) shall not drive in the course of any consecutive seven days for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than seventeen and a half hours; and
(d) shall not exceed four hours in continuous driving without an interval of not less than half an hour to obtain rest and refreshment.

(3) A part-time driver, engaged in operations under the Transport Act 1968—

(a) shall not on any working day drive a vehicle or vehicles for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than four and a half hours; and
(b) shall not, on any one day when no other employment is undertaken, exceed five and a half hours in continuous driving without a interval of not less than half an hour to obtain rest and refreshment.

(4) If any of the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) of this section is contravened in the case of any part-time driver

(a) that part-time driver; and
(b) any other person (being that part-time driver's employer or a person to whose orders that part-time driver was subject) who caused or permitted the contravention
shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine as specified under the Transport Act 1968 and the relevant transport regulations.

(5) In this Act, "the relevant transport regulations" means Council Regulation (EEC) No. 543/69 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport.'.—[Mr. Robert Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the clause is self-explanatory. It seeks to regulate the hours of part-time public service vehicle drivers. Full-time public service vehicle drivers have their hours regulated to ensure the safety of passengers and other road users and to protect themselves from unscrupulous operators who make them drive too long. However, part-time drivers need to be considered and brought into regulations for safety reasons.
Two sources of law govern the hours of driving of public service vehicles—the Transport Act 1968 and EEC regulation 534/69. The EEC regulation applies to all coach operators, and the United Kingdom law applies to bus operators on routes of less than 50 km. The basic principle in both laws is to place restrictions on the amount of


driving in a day and over a period and to provide for statutory periods of rest between shifts, during shifts and over a period.
Over an eight-hour shift an employer can expect to get a maximum of seven hours driving out of a full-time employee. That is eight hours, less a minimum 30-minute break and a further 30 minutes for booking-on time. In the light of experience, most employers will do extremely well if they manage to get six and a half hours of driving out of an eight-hour shift. The overtime use of a full-time employee is limited. It is limited under United Kingdom law to about three and a half hours of driving and under EEC regulations to one and a half hours or two and a half hours of driving.
No one would dispute that the law as it stands effectively protects the travelling public, the employers' property and the employees' health and safety from the damage that excessive driving can cause, but these protections apply only in the case of the full-time driver. There is nothing to stop, say, a foundry worker, after completing his normal day's business, or a Member of Parliament, after an all-night sitting, from driving a coach full of people for the total number of hours allowed for a full-time driver. I am not suggesting that, should we have an all-night sitting tonight, any of our colleagues might be tempted tomorrow to drive a PSV, but there is obviously a case for ensuring that there is proper protection for the driver and the public, as well as property.
9.15 pm
I have some evidence about the prevalence of the use of part-time drivers. If the new clause is to be accepted, we must show that operators make considerable use of part-time drivers. I have a great deal of evidence here, although I confess that I have not had a chance to check the information. For that reason, I hesitate to give the names of the companies, although I should gladly do so if any right hon. or hon. Member feels that my information is inaccurate.
I should point out at the start that these companies do not have a bad safety record or a greater than ususal number of accidents. Therefore, it will be better not to name the companies. I have no wish to suggest that the companies or the men concerned are accident-prone or dangerous.
The evidence shows that there is a great prevalence of part-time driving. It shows, too, that the conditions in which people are working are not conducive either to their own health and safety or to that of the companies for which they work. For example, three companies in the Newark area employ staff, who work for the national Coal Board at the Newark power station, to operate school contracts. There is a company in Skegness which has six buses and no full-time drivers. It uses among others, what are described as billycart men. Some people may know what a billycart man is, but I do not. The explanation given here is that they are council cesspit operators. They do private hire and school contracts. There is a company in Boston with 22 buses and only six full-time staff, the rest being part-timers. There is a company in Scunthorpe which uses 60 to 70 part-timers to operate stage carriage, schools and private hire. It draws its part-time employees from, among other places, the steel works, the police and people on the unemployment register.
Another company which has 35 coaches has 40 or more part-time staff. It uses employees mainly from Perkins of

Peterborough. Those men have to travel from Peterborough to do the job, and that could take up to two hours driving to and from work. Another company uses a fireman to do part-time work, and we know that regulations apply to firemen. There is another company in Berwick which employs a milkman who does an early morning round, school work in the afternoon, and private hire in the evening. He must be putting in many hours of work.
Perhaps the most serious example is a company in Morpeth that employs a security officer, who does a 12-hour night shift, to drive part-time. It cannot fill anyone with confidence that that man drives after a 12-hour night shift. In another example a man who does continental shifts which involve long hours then drives part-time. The list goes on. I am certain that the list that I have been given is preliminary only. If all other operators were examined, we would find that the practice is widespread. I understand that in some cases drivers may be employed under exempt employment when they drive vehicles which are not covered by driving hours regulations.
The matter should be examined seriously. There should be restrictions on the use of part-time employees who have already completed a full-time job. As is clear from the evidence that I have given, some are involved in heavy manual labour, so they will be physically as well as mentally tired at the end of the shift.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clarify subsection (2)(c) in the new clause. Is he saying that a person who is on holiday from his normal employment can drive only 17½ hours in a seven-day period? I take it that the hon. Gentleman refers to a man who has not done a normal job during the day but who may be on holiday. If that is correct, why has he inserted a limit of 17½ hours for a person who, although he may be in full-time normal employment, is not working at the time?

Mr. Hughes: I am not referring in subsection (2)(c) to someone working during his holiday. If the hon. Gentleman examines subsection (2), paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), he will find that they add up to the combinations of hours that are already applied to full-time drivers. I can go through the regulations in detail if the hon. Gentleman wishes. There are specific regulations on the number of hours that a man may drive normally during the day, there are regulations about overtime and there are regulations governing the number of hours in any period. The purpose primarily is to prevent the over-use of rest day driving. Some of the cases to which I referred include people who are driving part-time for some companies but who have already done a full-time job and would probably be debarred from working full time as drivers. However, they can still work on rest days or part time. I hope that that answers the question.
We wish to avoid the abuse of employing people who have already done a full-time job. I do not wish to over-dramatise the position, especially as I know of an event that happened a long time ago and does not apply to public service vehicles. I know of a case where a driver was asked to drive a lorry-load of fish from the north of Scotland to London, having been at sea as a fisherman for 14 hours and having had only two hours sleep. It happened many years ago but I am sure that the regulations would now make it an offence. We wish to ensure that there is no abuse.
We also know that the EEC Commission is alarmed at the growth in the use of part-time workers. A study is being carried out into the use of part-time workers. The study, which is not specifically allied to PSV vehicles, is about general working conditions and exploitation by employers who believe that, by employing workers part-time, they can pay lower wages and provide worse conditions.
That is certainly a possibility if people work outside their normal working hours in order to earn extra money. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Government that the new clause should be accepted.
Some questions may be raised about the technicalities of the measure. We found it difficult to decide what the penalty should be. We decided to take advantage of the Transport Act 1968. A Bill currently going through the House—which is probably still in Committee—is updating penalties. That Bill is probably the best vehicle to use, instead of selecting an arbitrary figure of £100 or £200 and allying it to some comparable offence with this legislation. It must be of concern to the House that tired people may be driving coachloads of children. Therefore, I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept the new clause and that the House will give it a fair wind.

Mr. David Penhaligon: The new clause presents a serious problem that is worthy of debate. I am not convinced that the new clause is the solution. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is not so remote from this problem as some of his colleagues. There are some aspects of rural life that do not fit in with the quaint image of people working a nice, standard eight-hour day and then doing other work.
Public transport in Cornwall is now becoming something to tell one's children about, but what remains of it depends upon what I would describe as the part-time driver. I do not necessarily mean part-time as defined in the new clause. I refer to someone whose means of earning a living is not restricted to driving a lorry. Cornwall county council spends around £1¼ million a year transporting children to school. This work is largely carried out by small local firms who own one or two buses. They employ someone to drive the children to school. That driver will then come back to work in the garage for a few hours, perhaps repair a tractor, and then return to pick up the children from school, drive them home and do whatever else the business may require that day.
In my experience, it is not unusual for a self-employed farmer to have a coach as a side-line. He might milk the cows in the morning, drive the children to school, return to do a bit of farming, perhaps have a couple of hours' rest and then muck out or do whatever else is required on the farm and then take the children home in the afternoon. Much of what remains of transport in my area is done in that way. I fear that some of those people may find themselves in a difficult and embarrassing position when it comes to convincing the authorities that they are not breaking the law.
Another part-time Cornish business will soon be plied again, that of "soak the tourist while he is there". Mystery tours are provided and that is one of the great sports of my county. Some visitors are put on board a coach and driven up whatever road has no traffic on it. The visitors are charged £2 or £3 and they seem to be extremely happy with

the entertainment provided for the evening. Such a driver would be part-time within the context of this clause but I can see no harm in making a few honest shillings when the chance is available. I would be appalled if the House were to prevent those who do not exactly live in one of the country's prosperous parts from making a few shillings when the opportunity arises. However, I commend the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North for introducing a matter that clearly deserves some attention.
9.30 pm
I hope that the Minister will reject the clause, but I recognise that there is a problem. Every year there seems to be a transport Bill with numerous clauses. I hope that the Department will apply its mind to the problem. However, I beg the Government not to enact legislation that could lead to the loss of some public transport in areas such as mine. In a jocular way, I should point out that if public transport in my area was not provided in that way, there would not—on the economics of the real world—be any. The idea that a full-time coach operator or driver can make anything like a living in some of the remoter parts of my constituency is, I am afraid, something that ceased to have validity a decade or more ago.
I hope that the Government will not accept the clause as drafted. However, the House should apply its mind to the problem. In drawing up any legislation I implore the Government not to forget the remoter parts of the country that have work patterns that do not fit the urban image of British life, that is personified by the Labour Party, of people getting up, working for eight hours, finishing work and going home. Thank goodness, not all Britain is like that.

Mr. Bagier: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has painted a lurid picture, which is no doubt true of what has happened to public transport in the remote parts of the country. Many of us have been concerned about that for some years. During the Beeching era the rural railway lines were slashed. I hope that the hon. Member for Truro will be in the Chamber when we discuss the disposal of the express coach services and so on, which cross-subsidise his part of the country. He may well perceive that there is another grave danger to public transport in areas such as his.
I should hate to think that the hon. Member for Truro was being too jocular. I should hate one of his mystery tours to end down a ravine because the part-time driver had been overworked and had worked too hard in another job. However, I was impressed by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We must consider how the provision will apply to various parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) backed the new clause with information that has been gathered—as he would be the first to agree—at fairly short notice. It dealt with the possible abuses of part-time driving. Many of the examples come from the Northern region. We have had less than a week to draw up some evidence. Just over a week ago it was suggested that part-time drivers were a danger. We said that it would be interesting to have some positive evidence and that it would be no use making a broad allegation about the dangers of part-time driving without that evidence.
Unfortunately, in certain parts of the country the part-time driver is a moonlighter, and sometimes a very dangerous one at that. In that context, the Government must discover some means of controlling the part-time


driver who, after all, does not work as a full-time driver and who is, therefore, not subject to the same controls. The safety angle is important. Some Conservative Members may applaud the energies of those cited by the hon. Member for Truro. They may say that they are great entrepreneurs and that in Cornwall a man can be a milkman in the morning, drive children in the afternoon and conduct mystery tours at night. However, the House must decide whether that is safe and whether he will fall asleep at the wheel. Of course, the entrepreneur outlined by the hon. Member for Truro is not necessarily the man that we are discussing. According to the evidence, a large fleet of coaches in the Ashington area employs passenger transport labour from the National Coal Board and the police force. In that case, part-time policemen are engaged in driving, even though they are now well looked after by the Government. Is there really a need for police to be employed as part-time coach drivers?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes.

Mr. Bagier: My hon. Friend says "Yes", but I disagree. In Amble, another firm employs pitmen, schoolteachers, driving instructors and retired employees of the NBC subsidiary. In Cramlington, even the doorman of a working men's club is employed as a part-time driver for private hires at weekends.
A safety aspect is involved, and that is what the House should be worried about. That is the main burden of the arguments that have been put forward.
There is another argument. In my part of the country, there is high unemployment. I wonder why the economics of these coach services are in such a state that they cannot employ full-time drivers instead of part-timers. We all know the reasons. Those services do not want to take people on as staff. They prefer to use them on a part-time basis. On some occasions there is an argument in favour of letting out small contracts on a part-time basis, but that is by no means regularly the case.
By no means are the employers of that part-time labour motivated by the desire to fill a vacancy. Very often they are motivated by the economic consequences of not taking on extra staff. I particularly deplore that practice in my area, and I hope that they will refrain from doing so.
In another example, a security officer working a 12-hour night shift is being used to drive part time. I do not believe that the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary or the Government believe that to be a safe practice. I suspect that they would like to do something about it, as would every hon. Member. It may well be that the new clause does not take into account all the aspects required by the law to control this abuse. As the hon. Member for Truro said, it may even have bad rub-offs.
It ought to be incumbent on the hon. Lady to come forward with a suggestion that will control the situation and stop the abuse of part-time drivers transporting children in minibuses and service buses to and from school. The Minister should do something to stop a part-timer driving a coach full of old-age pensioners up hills and down dales, late at night, often in dangerous parts of the country.
A full-time driver cannot work more than seven hours on duty, otherwise he becomes tired and is not capable of doing the job properly. That is the law. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to say that a man who has worked for eight hours down a pit, or a policeman who has

done eight hours' duty is not capable of driving safely. The same applies to the other people mentioned in the long list that emerged from this week-long investigation.
I ask the hon. Lady to explain why it is difficult to control the part-time driver. I wish that she would go further. If there is difficulty about the new clause, I hope that she will say that the Government have the matter in hand and intend to produce something better. I hope that she will accept that we have introduced the new clause with the best of intentions. I trust that there will be more control over the safety considerations that apply to part-time drivers and that eventually the use of such people will be discontinued.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: This is by no means the first time that this issue has come before the House of Commons since I entered Parliament in 1966. It must have come forward in every Parliament at least once or twice, but so far no Government seem to have succeeded in solving the problem of part-time driving.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that this is a serious problem. A man who works an eight-hour day, takes out a coach at 7 o'clock at night to take a group of people to a skittle alley and arrives back at 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock in the morning, can create a hazard. I have seen it. I have been in coaches with drivers looking terribly tired. Those drivers were part-time. They did other jobs during the day.
One of the problems that the coach firms find is connected with the Under-Secretary's previous existence in the DHSS. I recently heard of a man who had been unemployed for a long time, who was fed up with sitting at home. He was offered a job with a coach firm doing a morning and evening school bus service, for which he was paid the princely sum of £25 a week, which was probably right for the hours that he worked. Having taken that job, he found that his income was half what it was previously when he has been on social security. He could not claim supplementary benefit because he was not available for work as he was doing a couple of hours driving in the mornings and afternoons. Because of the regulations it is difficult for a coach firm to employ someone, who is not otherwise employed, to do specific jobs in the evening or during the day. The amount that such a firm pays is insufficient to keep people who cannot claim supplementary benefit.
I am not convinced that the wording of the clause is right to solve the problem. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), if the provisions in the new clause were rigidly adhered to, there would be difficulties in rural areas. I hope that the Minister will tell us her ideas for attempting to stop or limit the abuse of someone, having worked an eight or 10-hour day, taking out a coach for four hours in the evening.

Mrs. Chalker: This has been an interesting debate. One cannot help but sympathise with the case that has been made. There is no hon. Member who does not want bus and coach travel to be as safe as humanly possible. We all know that the driver who is tired is liable to be dangerous. Without endorsing all that is already contained in EEC Regulation 543/69, which is being reviewed at present, I can safely say that bus and coach operation is now a great deal safer than it was before driving hours were controlled.
I have difficulty with the new clause, despite the persuasion of hon. Members. While I agree with them on


the grounds of safety, I differ with them for the reasons that were clearly spelt out by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) concerning part-time drivers. I have further problems. Despite the excellence of the clause, there are drafting difficulties. I must tell the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that the clause does not define full-time employment or the working day. There are many other problems with the clause.
This matter has come up before. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, when he was the Secretary of State for Transport, debated it on 12 February 1980 in Committee. What he said is as true today as it was two years ago. He said:
the independent sector of the bus industry relies heavily on part-time drivers. They reduce costs because they are more flexible about shifts. They are obviously invaluable in the seasonal coaching trade."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 12 February 1980; c. 1524.]
My right hon. Friend went on to cope with many other comments that were made and recognised the importance of safety. I fully accept the importance of safety. Nothing that I shall say will go against that. Nevertheless, I cannot advise the House to accept the new clause, not only because of the drafting but because of the important role that part-time drivers play in the private sector of the bus and coach industry.
9.45 pm
We all know that there is a tiny minority who might be described as cowboys. When I say the private sector, I do not mean such people. Traffic commissioners already have powers through operator licensing to deal with cowboys. They can and do deal with them. Many small bus and coach operators have a great fluctuation in their work load from one day to another or from one week to another. They need the flexibility of being able to employ part-time drivers if they are to provide the service that is demanded of them by the people in their localities. That is especially true with regard to people living in rural areas and holidaymakers.
The House would be doing a great disservice to the travelling public if it were to go down the path that was suggested by the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) and Aberdeen, North. The costs to small operators would be vastly increased if they were required at all times to employ full-time drivers. I am sure that such operators are fully aware of their responsibilities to their passengers. I am sure that, in the main, with the exception of the cowboys whom I have described, small operators have the safety of their passengers in mind.
Despite what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, said, there is no evidence that part-time drivers as a group are any less safe or reliable than their full-time colleagues. He may be aware of the Hunt study that was carried out a few years ago. It investigated the relative safety of part-and full-time bus drivers. It analysed their respective accident rates and differences in the types of accident. It was a well-planned study with a 30-day pilot study and involved 490 bus operators.
The main part of the study invited PSV operators with vehicles of more than 12 seats to participate. The final study covered 3,148 operators, who eventually came to the firm conclusion that part-time drivers have a lower accident rate than full-time ones, taking account of the relative exposure to risk of each group. Indeed, the

evidence showed that the full-time driver had more than three times as many accidents per 1,000 driving hours as a part-time driver.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the definition of a part-time driver in the study someone who has already done a full day's work?

Mrs. Chalker: No, the questions were asked of all part-time drivers, whether they were employed in other ways or solely for part of a day and in no other employment. Taking the differences that were shown up in the study, the fact remains that part-time drivers had a lower accident rate irrespective of whether they were employed at other times in other work. That showed up clearly. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, advanced a selection of evidence. I fully accept that changes may be occurring.
The hon. Members for Truro and Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) both said that the new clause was not the way to proceed, and I certainly agree. The House should not take such a step without far fuller consultation with the industry than has taken place so far. As a result of the operation being carried out by the European Commission, we are also looking carefully at this in relation to the European regulations to ensure that we do not omit safety considerations in dealing with the driving of public service vehicles.
Much of the industry depends on small coach operations and thus uses part-time drivers not only at weekends but sometimes during the week. The whole of that part of the industry would be turned upside down by the new clause, even if the drafting faults were put right.
Moreover, there is a fallacy in the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. The use of part-time drivers is crucial to the economics of the private sector of the bus industry. If we prevent full-time workers elsewhere from driving part time, logically we should also prevent full-time drivers from working elsewhere part-time. We do not have the power to do that. That is why I agreed with the hon. Members for Truro and Southampton, Itchen that the new clause is not the way to accomplish what all hon. Members wish to achieve—that is, safer driving, whether by part-time or full-time drivers.

Mr. Bagier: The Minister says that there is nothing to prevent a full-time driver doing other work elsewhere. The House would have no objection to that. He could work in his garden or do what he liked. He will not be driving a vehicle, to which these safety considerations apply. Will the Minister answer the question put to her by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell)? Do the Government object to a person working full-time as a policeman, a coal miner or in any other business starting to drive after his full-time job is finished? If the Minister does not object to that, does she believe that it is safe?

Mrs. Chalker: It depends what the full-time job is. Full-time drivers are required to take rest periods, but we cannot guarantee that they actually rest during those periods. Some people with full-time jobs may be fully rested at the end of their seven-hour day. Looking at certain groups, one certainly wonders. I am saying that a person who is not fit to drive a public service vehicle, whether he be a part-time or a full-time driver, should not be driving such a vehicle. But the matter does not fall neatly into the categories advanced by the hon. Gentleman.
In addition, the new clause restricts the individual beyond what may be necessary. I suggest that we should not use this measure, even if its faults were corrected, but that we should await the revision of drivers' hours that is now taking place. The operation that we have already carried through to control driving hours has achieved a great improvement in the safety of bus and coach operations. We want that to continue. I do not believe that the new clause will help us to achieve what the House wishes to achieve. Therefore, I must advise the House not to accept new clause 7.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am extremely disappointed at the comments that have been made about the new clause. First, I do not apologise for any technical drafting errors. One does the best that one can, and it is easy to point out difficulties. I am surprised that some hon. Members do not even seem to have read it.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), who is concerned about part-time drivers, did not seem to realise that the clause begins by pointing out that it is dealing with people in full-time employment in an occupation other than as a public service vehicle driver. We are not speaking about the fellow who is employed part-time in the morning and part-time in the evening. With the greatest respect, I am a bit tired of lectures from the Liberal Party about the community politics and snide remarks about the Labour Party in towns having no concern for, or comprehension of, rural areas.
The hon. Member for Truro is asking us to apply lower safety standards in rural areas than in cities. I should have thought that any constituent of his in a rural area who knew that a bus operator was employing someone who had done a full-time job of eight or 10 hours a day and then gone out on a mystery tour, or taken the children to and from school, would be appalled at the suggestion that part-time drivers are the only way to maintain the life-blood of rural communities.
It may be that the part-time driver is the life-blood of the private operator. However, they do not have to be part-time drivers who are already employed in another job. Even in Truro there must be some unemployed people who, properly trained, could be public service vehicle drivers. Wherever the thousands of bus operators work up and down the country, there are many unemployed people who would be glad to do a part-time job in this business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) put the matter of the mystery tour aptly. It is not much fun on a mystery tour if one ends up in a ravine. It is certainly not much of a mystery tour if one ends up in the grave.
The defect in the study that the Under-Secretary mentioned is that it did not distinguish between part-time drivers and part-time drivers who had already done a full-time job. Standards of safety are paramount. It cannot be said that there is a fluctuation from week to week to the extent that the poor small operator cannot survive without part-time drivers. If he is using part-time drivers excessively, he is making the driver and the vehicle that he operates a danger on the road and he is damaging the driver's health.
The Under-Secretary put forward the argument that we are trying to control the part-time work of a PSV operator who is in a full-time job other than driving a public sector vehicle, but doing nothing to control the full-time PSV operator from having a part-time job. Nobody cares if a

bus driver does eight hours on the road, or whatever is his maximum time, and then draws pints in the working men's club. No one objects if he takes a part-time job in foundry, where there may be serious dangers, but they are controlled by the Factories Acts. However, we do care about people who do a 12-hour night shift as a security officer and then take schoolchildren on the road.
I am upset that the hon. Lady has rejected the clause so comprehensively. I do not think that it is good enough to wait for the study that has been carried out in the review of the EEC regulation. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause by joining me in the Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 290.

Division No. 166]
[9.59


AYES


Abse, Leo
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)


Adams, Allen
Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)


Allaun, Frank
English, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Evans, John (Newton)


Ashton, Joe
Field, Frank


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Fitch, Alan


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Flannery, Martin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bennett Andrew (St'kp'tN)
Ford, Ben


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
George, Bruce


Brown, Ro n (E'burgh, Laith)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Graham, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
G rant, John (Islington C)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cant, R. B.
Hardy, Peter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cartwright, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Heffer, Eric S.


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Coleman, Donald
Home Robertson, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Homewood, William


Conlan, Bernard
Huckfield, Les


Cook, Robin F.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Crowther, Stan
Janner, Hon Greville


Cryer, Bob
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cunliffe, Lawrence
John, Brynmor


Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L lli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Lamborn, Harry


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Leadbitter, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ronald


Dixon, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Hon(Carlisle)


Douglas, Dick
Litherland, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Dunn, James A.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank


Eastham, Ken
McKay, Allen (Penistone)






McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McNally, Thomas
Short, Mrs Renée


McNamara, Kevin
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McTaggart, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


McWilliam, John
Silverman, Julius


Marks, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Snape, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Soley, Clive


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Spearing, Nigel


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Spriggs, Leslie


Maxton, John
Stallard, A.W.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Stoddart, David


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Mikardo, Ian
Strang, Gavin


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Straw, Jack


Miller,Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tilley, John


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Tinn, James


Newens, Stanley
Torney,Tom


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Ogden, Eric
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


O'Halloran, Michael
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


O'Neill, Martin
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watkins, David


Palmer, Arthur
Weetch, Ken


Park, George
Welsh, Michael


Parker, John
White, Frank R.


Parry, Robert
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Pavitt, Laurie
Whitehead, Phillip


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Whitlock, William


Prescott, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Race, Reg
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Richardson, Jo
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Winnick, David


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Woodall, Alec


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wright, Sheila


Rooker, J. W.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sandelson, Neville
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Sever, John
 Mr. George Morton.


Sheerman,Barry





NOES


Adley, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard


Aitken, Jonathan
Bright, Graham


Alexander, Richard
Brinton, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter


Ancram, Michael
Brotherton, Michael


Arnold Tom
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n,)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Buck, Antony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Budgen, Nick


Banks, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Burden, Sir Frederick


Bendall, Vivian
Butcher, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Benyon.W. (Buckingham)
Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)


Best, Keith
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Chapman, Sydney


Blackburn, John
Churchill, W.S.


Blaker, Peter
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Body, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Cockeram, Eric


Bowden, Andrew
Cope, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cormack, Patrick





Corrie, John
Knox, David


Costain, Sir Albert
Lang, Ian


Cranborne, Viscount
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Critchley, Julian
Latham, Michael


Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lee, John


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dorrell, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Dover, Denshore
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Loveridge, John


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Lyell, Nicholas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McCrindle, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Macfarlane, Neil


Elliott, Sir William
MacGregor, John


Emery, Sir Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Farr, John
McQuarrie, Albert


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Madel, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Major, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marland, Paul


Forman, Nigel
Marlow, Antony


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mellor, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Gow, Ian
Moate, Roger


Gower, Sir Raymond
Monro, Sir Hector


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus


Greenway, Harry
Morgan, Geraint


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Morris, M.(N'hampton S)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Hon A.
Myles, David


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Newton, Tony


Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom


Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Heddle, John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Henderson, Barry
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hill, James
Parris, Matthew


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hooson, Tom
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Sir Ian


Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pink, R. Bonner


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pollock, Alexander


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Porter, Barry


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rathbone, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Renton, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridley, Hon Nicholas






Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rifkind, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Thompson, Donald


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Rossi, Hugh
Thornton, Malcolm


Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Trippier, David


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, David


Shepherd, Richard
Wakeham, John


Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Silvester, Fred
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Sims, Roger
Wall, Sir Patrick


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waller, Gary


Smith, Dudley
Ward, John


Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Speller, Tony
Watson, John


Spence, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sproat, Iain
Whitney, Raymond


Squire, Robin
Wickenden, Keith


Stainton, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Stanley John
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Martin
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stokes, John



Stradling Thomas, J.
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
 Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Transport Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Clause 1

BUS COMPANY'S POWERS OF DISPOSAL

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 3, in page 2 line 14, leave out
'with the consent of the Secretary of State'.

Mr. Hughes: The purpose of these amendments is to discover what considerations the Secretary of State has in mind in giving his consent to the disposal of assets or the sale of shares in the National Bus Company. On Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman made great play of the advantages to the NBC of privatisation. He said that the access of private capital would be beneficial, but as we proceeded through the debate in Committee it became clear that the well-being of the NBC was the thing that was furthest from the Government's mind. In this part of the Bill they are looking for goodies to share out. They want to make sure that their friends manage to get whatever is going on which there might be some profit.
The only two rational parts of the NBC that might be available for privatisation are National Express and the

holiday business. National Express is run as an integrated company, and neither its operations nor those of she holiday side of the business can be separated from the NBC without damaging the company. In National Express, the work force and the maintenance depots for the fleet are fully interchangeable.
The latest NBC accounts show that National Express contributed £4 million to the company as a whole. That £4 million is equivalent to 10 per cent. of the local authority support given to the NBC. If that amount of money goes from NBC, a large number of subsidiary services that are run by the NBC for example in rural areas, will be put at risk.
Many of the services that are arranged in conjunction with local authorities will be put at risk, for the simple reason that local authorities do not have the extra cash to put up. Anyone who knows anything about public transport knows that cross-subsidisation is a natural part of a transport undertaking. That cross-subsidisation is route by route, and day by day and relates to many of the services. It is clear that if a purely accountant's view is taken of each individual service and route, the majority of the routes would not stand being run as a viable concern.
Nor can it be argued that the services will be taken up by private operators. There is no guarantee that they will succeed. Indeed, many of the private bus operators who moved into the business, or sought to expand their businesses because of deregulation, have failed. Some of my hon. Friends have pointed out that of the 19 operators who moved into the business, only five remain. Great damage can be done to the National Bus Company because of the Government's insistence and dogmatism.
10.15 pm
There is no doubt that great pressure will be exerted by the Secretary of State to have bits and pieces sold off. But the National Bus Company clearly does not want large-scale privatisation. The company may have stated its ability to live with the Governmment's proposals, but we are entitled to know from the Secretary of State the conditions under which he would give his consent and to seek an assurance that he will not allow damage to the National Bus Company through backstairs pressure. I hope that the Government will make clear their intentions. That was not done on Second Reading.

Mr. David Howell: The hon Gentleman seeks to establish the conditions under which the Secretary of State would give consent to the disposal of shares or other securities in the subsidiaries of the National Bus Company. The amendment would remove the requirement of the company to obtain consent. In other words, the company would be free to dispose of any shares in any of its subsidiaries at any time on any terms. I realise that this is presumably a probing amendment. I cannot believe that it is serious. If it were, it would be a very difficult proposition to accept.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the Secretary of State's consent and the conditions under which it will be given. It is because, in these transactions, the Secretary of State will be acting as the custodian of the public interest that his consent is required. However much faith one may have in the board and management of the company—I have a great deal of faith in them—it would be illogical to leave it to them to determine whether a particular subsidiary should remain in the public sector. That is a matter for the elected Government of the day, who are rightly answerable to Parliament for their decisions.
The Secretary of State would need to take account of the public interest in two particular ways. First, the taxpayer has an interest in ensuring that a fair price is obtained for the sale of public assets. Secondly, the travelling public have an interest in ensuring that whatever changes are made they lead to an improvement in the range and quality of services provided. That is a sensible objective.
I know that the Opposition start from a rather defeatist view. They believe that any change that involves bringing in the private sector or private enterprise is bound to be for the worse. They stick to that view through thick and thin. The Government take a contrary view. We believe that we should not limit the opportunities for developing the NBC's commercial operations and improving the facilities that can be offered to the passenger. We believe that it would be wholly wrong to deny the NBC the means to attract private capital.
It is because we take what we believe to be a practical and commonsense view, and one that is in the interests of the development of the services of the NBC, that we say that the Government of the day must be the judge of whether proposals to sell shares are in the public interest. The amendment would remove what we regard as an essential safeguard. I hope that the amendment will be rejected if it cannot be withdrawn.
The hon. Gentleman also indulged in some wider observations about the contribution that National Express and National Holidays make to the long-run costs of the National Bus Company. It is worth while putting some matters on the record. There is a danger that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will get these things slightly out of perspective. The NBC's long-run unavoidable costs were helped to the tune of £4 million in the last year, 1980, for which we have figures.
The stage carriage turnover of the National Bus Company was £492 million, which is more than 120 times greater. Even if that £4 million were to disappear with privatisation, that would be a small amount. The Government believe that with privatisation the minority shareholdings that the NBC will have in subsidiaries will bring benefit to the NBC and enable it to strengthen and develop its operations. We believe that that is the right way to go on all counts. I cannot see how the amendment would help the Bill in any way. I hope that I have answered the questions that lie behind the amendment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I realise that if the amendment were accepted the National Bus Company would be free to dispose of any subsidiaries or to sell shares without the consent of the Secretary of State. It is my understanding that that has always been the case. It can dispose of property if that is desirable, under previous Acts. It is news to me that the intention of providing for the consent of the Secretary of State is to protect the public interest, as everything in clause 1 appears to us to be against the public interest. Having made that point, and having listened to the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION I

Mr. David Howell: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
'(2A) Before making a scheme under subsection (2) above which provides for the transfer of rights and liabilities under contracts of employment, the Bus Company shall consult with persons appearing to them to represent the employees concerned.'.
The amendment fulfils an undertaking that we gave in Committee to amend clause 2 to include a requirement that the company should consult employees or their representatives before making changes which could affect their interests. The amendment would require consultation in any case where the National Bus Company proposed to make a statutory scheme which provided for the transfer of rights and liabilities under a contract of employment. For example, the company would have to consult its work force before transferring employees from one of the regional operating companies to a coaching subsidiary in which shares had to be sold.
As we made clear in Committee, we believe that the National Bus Company, as a good employer, would inevitably consult in these circumstances. We would certainly encourage it to do so. The amendment puts the position beyond doubt.
I should like to make two points about the scope of the amendment. First, it applies only to transfers of rights and liabilities under contracts of employment. This seems to us to be a sensible definition of changes which could materially affect employees' interests. Secondly, the amendment does not cover changes in contracts of employment associated with the exercise of the National Bus Company's powers under clause 2(1). Any change to a contract of employment other than under the power to make statutory schemes would require consultation in any event, since it could be made only with the specific consent of the employees.
The amendment improves the Bill by requiring consultation in the theoretical case where the National Bus Company might propose to use its scheme-making power to alter contracts of employment without consent. The amendment is the constructive result of some hard work done in Committee. I hope that it has the support of the Opposition. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Booth: The amendment is a small move in the direction of an aim that we sought to establish in Committee to ensure that trade unions representing employees of the National Bus Company were consulted before any scheme was made which would affect their members. My hon. Friends and I would prefer a right to be granted to unions with negotiating rights rather than, as in the terms of the amendments, leaving the NBC to decide who should represent the employees concerned.
Nevertheless, we accept that the amendment is a step in the right direction. I join the Secretary of State in hoping that it will be accepted by the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stott: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 28, at end insert—
'(6) The proceeds of any disposal under section 1(1) of this Act shall be made available to the Bus Company for the reduction of capital debt.'.
It was clear throughout the debate on Second Reading and the proceedings in Committee that the Opposition


were opposed to the provisions in part 1, which set out to sell off the profitable subsidiaries of the National Bus Company. We made our opposition plain on Second Reading and we made it even plainer in Committee. We shall make it plain again this evening.
The amendment seeks to redress the balance of the National Bus Company. Ever since its inception the company has had to operate with substantial difficulties because of capital debt and the interest charges that fell upon it. There would have been no need for the Government to privatise the company, apart from dogmatic reasons, if the Secretary of State had accepted the tenor of the debates in the House since the company's formation.
It is not only the House that has spoken of the capital debt and the interest burden that has been placed on the company. On no fewer than two occasions a Select Committee has examined the capital debt structure of the company and made specific recommendations to the Labour Government and to the present Government. The Committee has drawn attention to the appalling problems that face the company in respect of its capital debts.
During a fairly fulsome debate on the Transport (Finance) Bill on 26 January I outlined in detail the company's capital debts problem and the interest payments that it has been called upon to make. I shall not weary the House by rehearsing the arguments that I advanced on that occasion. However, those problems remain.
When the company was set up in 1969, its financial structure included a capital debt. That must be unique when contrasted with the financial structures of private companies, which are usually launched with a mixture of equity capital, ordinary shares and fixed interest loans. However, the NBC was started with a capital debt that was regarded as entirely repayable. In addition, it had to take over part of London Transport's organisation—London Country Bus Services Ltd.—which had lost £2 million in the year prior to its transfer. It took over that company with a large deficit and declining assets.
In the late 1970s it was asked by the then Minister of Transport to run additional miles in rural areas. Those were routes which, on any objective calculation, would have been withdrawn because of the financial penalties that were being occurred. However, the company adhered to a ministerial directive to run unprofitable services without payment from Government funds.
Against that background the company has found itself in great difficulty over the years. I remind the Secretary of State that on at least two occasions Select Committees have brought to our attention the difficulties which the company has faced.
The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries reported that
your committee consider that a change should be made. They recommend: (a) that the Government should write-off entirely those debts of NBC attributable to additional mileage operated during 1975 and to London Country Bus Services Ltd.; (b) that the interest charges on commencing capital debt should be met directly by the Government by direct grant to NBC, and not imposed on individual subsidiary companies or counties.
The Select Committee on Transport stated:
The Government should now reconsider their attitude to the earlier recommendations of the Nationalised Industries Committee and should consider a possible restructuring of the finances of the National Bus Company by conversion of original and subsequent capital debts, into the Government-held dividends and shares in the Company.

On each occasion that I raised this issue on the Floor of the House or in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport—at that time the hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—dismissed the suggestions as petty-fogging indifference. I have attempted in a serious manner to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the real problems of the National Bus Company, and the Secretary of State has sought to ignore them. The amendment seeks to rectify that matter in some small measure.
If the profitable bits of the NBC are to be hived off to private enterprise—I do not apologise for saying again that we fully oppose that in principle—at least some of the money made from those sales should be given back to the NBC, so that the company can write off its commencing capital debt, and so that it does not have to operate with one arm tied behind its back, as it has to do now. If there is any justice, the Secretary of State will give this problem some thought, and I hope that he will agree to our amendment.

Mr. David Howell: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) addressed himself seriously and with close attention to an issue which I know worries him and which must worry those who follow the financial fortunes of the National Bus Company. I do not dismiss his amendment, but I have to tell him that it is unnecessary, because, on a sale by the company, the proceeds will come to the company and it can use the money to reduce capital debt. Perhaps that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. Possibly his intention is that the NBC should be forced to use the proceeds of disposals under clause 1 to reduce its capital debt.
The Government are not opposed to the NBC using the proceeds of sale in this way. We made it clear in Committee that it might well be sensible for the company, having disposed of an asset or part of its interest in a subsidiary, to use the proceeds to pay back that proportion of its overall debt which otherwise would have to be serviced from the earning power of the asset or the income from the interest in the subsidiary. That would be a perfectly sensible move, and that option is open to the company. It can do that now. However, to require the company to adopt it—rather than, for example, to use the proceeds in place of borrowing to finance new investment—could lead to a serious loss of flexibility both for the National Bus Company and for the Government of the day.
We have made it clear that the proceeds of disposals under the powers in the Bill would flow to NBC and that we would take them into account as one source of external finance when setting the company's external financing limits. If we were to be more specific at this stage, as the amendment suggests and as the hon. Gentleman argued, by insisting that the proceeds should be used in a particular way, both the company and the Government would have cause to regret that loss of flexibility.
The amendment is therefore not in the interests of the National Bus Company, in the use of funds raised from privatisation, although I understand that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were also aimed at the broader general issue of the capital debt, about which there has been discussion over the years and on which there is a difference between us. We do not accept the argument that the capital debt is an unfair and disproportionate burden.
The interest on the NBC's commencing capital debt and other long-term borrowings represents the cost of the capital used in the business. It is a legitimate part of the cost structure of the industry, just as wages, fuel costs or rates, and it falls to be met in the same way as the NBC's other costs. The cost is met largely by fare-paying passengers, although local authorities also contribute to the extent that they are customers for NBC's services. However, they are paying with taxpayers' and ratepayers' money on behalf of the community.
It has been suggested that we could write off the NBC's debts at the stroke of a pen, but that simply is not true. Writing off the debt would mean transferring the cost of NBC's capital from the people who use its services to taxpayers direct, and the Government see no grounds for doing that.

Mr. Fry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem arises with some of the NBC subsidiaries, especially London and Country Bus Services Ltd., which started with almost no money in the kitty and was transferred insolvent from London Transport to the NBC? Although I follow what my right hon. Friend is saying about other NBC subsidiaries, there appears to be a case for some consideration being given to the difficult beginnings of that company.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend raises a valid and valuable point about the distribution of interest on the NBC overall debt as between its subsidiary companies, which is a matter for concern and examination. Last year the Government and the NBC jointly commissioned a report on the distribution of interest as between the subsidiary companies. That report from the consultants Touche Ross and Company has just been received and I shall examine its conclusions closely in co-operation with the NBC. I take the spirit of my hon. Friend's intervention, but it does not alter my broader view that the amendment

is not necessary and that to impose on the NBC the sort of requirement that may be behind it would do no good to the future of the company, its customers, the Government, its employees or anyone else.

Mr. Stott: It is almost as though we were witnessing an action replay of the debates that we have had on the matter during the past 18 months. The Secretary of State has said nothing different from what his former Under-Secretary of State said when I raised the matter previously. I must reinforce on the record the fact that I do not accept what the Secretary of State has said. His hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was much nearer the point, as a member of the Select Committee on Transport, when he drew the Secretary of State's attention to the problems of the NBC since acquiring the London Country Bus Services Ltd. It inherited a real problem and it has still not discharged the problems.
The NBC stated that the action that it took in 1981 was designed to reduce its stage carriages services to achieve a saving of £25 million. The interest payments during that year were £18 million. Nearly three-quarters of the action taken by the company has been carried out to enable it to service its commencing capital debt—to pay a dividend in a bad year. It is no good the Secretary of State trying to dodge that fundamental and incontrovertible fact.
It would appear that the Government have no intention of resolving the matter in the way that the Select Committee recommended and I am sorry to hear the Secretary of State say that. I recognise that the amendment may be badly drafted but at least it has given the House and I the opportunity to air a hobby horse of mine. Although I accept that the amendment may not necessarily do what I intend it to do, I am grateful for the opportunity to reinforce once again the problems of the NBC. I am glad to have the opportunity to say once again that we oppose the Government's tawdry provisions in part I. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO GIVE DIRECTIONS

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 29, leave out clause 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this, it is convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9.

Mr. Hughes: In Committee and briefly during debate on an earlier amendment, we canvassed the case against privatisation of the National Bus Company. I shall not rehearse those arguments other than to repeat and emphasise that no good can come to the NBC as a result of privatisation.
Having included in the Bill the power to give consent and to approve schemes for the transfer of assets, rights and liabilities, and for the setting up of subsidiaries with or without modification—thus allowing him great backdoor pressure—the Secretary of State now wishes to take the power to direct the NBC to do as he wishes. We have often been told—it was part of the Conservative Party's philosophy at the last general election—that the Government do not wish to interfere in the running of nationalised industries. It was said that their job was to ensure that the parameters for running a nationalised industry had been set and that they were simply that the industry should be run in its best interests and in the best commercial interests of the nation.
No one can say that it is in the best interests of the nation to interfere with the commercial judgments of the NBC. We seek to leave matters to the board—through consultations with the work force and local authorities—to decide the best method of running the industry. I am in favour of public enterprise, but if the board of a public undertaking should decide, in its best interests, in the interest of the best use of public money and in the best interests of the work force that part of the industry would be much better run by someone else, no one could sensibly object. If we tell the board that its members are people of commercial judgment, business acumen and knowledge of the industry and can run the industry for us—without day-to-day interference from the Minister—how can we now tell them that, although we allow them to do certain things, the Government can direct them to act against their wishes?
From the Bill, it is clear that there are several stages. At first, the company is allowed to do certain things. The scheme that is put up must then be examined by the Secretary of State, who will decide whether it is right or proper. He then has further powers. Clause 3 ensures that if the NBC decides that it is not in the company's best interests to dispose of National Express or the holiday side, the Secretary of State can tell the company to comply with his wishes.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to prolong his remarks. However, he has mentioned what the board and the work force might want, but he has not mentioned the passengers' interests. Will he embrace their interests in his remarks?

Mr. Hughes: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman should make that point and reinforce my argument. I hope that he will join us in the Lobby. It has been implicit in my

remarks that the company exists to provide a service for passengers. It is not there for any airy-fairy purpose. It is clear from the evidence that the disposal of certain NBC assets will be to the detriment of rural areas, where bus services already experience extreme difficulties.
What if the bus company tells the Secretary of State "We shall not dispose of National Express or the holiday interests because of their contribution to the company's integrated economy"? What if it says that it will not sell off property because it is against the interests of the passengers? Will the hon. Gentleman defend the Secretary of State if he replies "Never mind the passengers, the bus company or the logic behind the case. I have decided that you will sell these things"? If he does, he is denying everything on which he purported to stand during the general election.
10.45 pm
The clause is severe in its application. Subsection (2) states:
It shall be the duty of the Bus Company (notwithstanding any duty imposed on them by section 24(2) or (3) of the Transport Act 1968) to give effect to any directions given under this section".
In other words, the Secretary of State is not only taking powers to direct the bus company to sell off, but he is taking powers to override statute. That is surely unprecedented.
On the other hand, some hon. Members may argue that section 24(2) and (3) of the Transport Act 1968 are of no account and it does not matter if the Secretary of State overrides them. However, that section imposes a duty on the bus company to consult local authorities and others and to provide an integrated transport service. Yet at the end of the day the Secretary of State can say "Never mind what the statute says, never mind the duty imposed by Parliament. I, the Secretary of State, will simply write that off'.
That comes strange from the mouths of hon. Members who claim to be strong believers in democracy and Parliament. I cannot believe that any of them in their heart of hearts accept that the Secretary of State is above Parliament. But that is precisely what is happening in clause 3(2).
For those reasons, I hope that the Government will think again. I hope that they will allow the bus company to be run in the best interests of the passengers and on the best business advice that it can get. They should not interfere in the running of the business. Let the company get on with the job so that it can do the things that everyone wants to see done.

Mr. Fry: I declared my interest on Second Reading, and I do so again. I do not wish to detain the House for long.
I am pleased with the amendments. I believe that a major step forward is contained in amendment No. 8. The Government have at last realised that decisions taken nationally can have significant local effects. To sell off or denationalise National Express would have a serious effect on many of the services provided by many of the NBC subsidiaries, particularly those in the South of England.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It allows me to point out that, in my anxiety to make progress, I failed to welcome Government amendments Nos. 7 to 9, which are concessions to the points that we made in Committee.

Mr. Fry: I am glad that there should be so much agreement across the Floor of the House.
Many of the existing stage carriage services still depend on a measure of cross-subsidisation, particularly from coach services run by the subsidiaries. Some of them, particularly in the South of England, run a profitable series of express coach and excursion services which, if cut back substantially, would have a drastic effect on the economy of a subsidiary company as a whole.
That could mean that the county council, which has responsibility for the oversight of public transport, could suffer a severe cut in services or have to ask for considerable extra money for public transport revenue support. Not all Governments are willing in the transport supplementary grant to give large amounts to county councils, because the cost could fall upon the ratepayer.
I thank the Government for the amendments that they have put forward. When they proceed, as presumably they will, to sell off or hive off those companies, I hope that they will take into account the effect upon the subsidiaries, not just upon the NBC as a whole, because that can be important. I ask the Government to bear that in mind subsequently when considering the TSG to the counties, because it could be affected by the change in the rules under which they run their coach and express services.

Mrs. Chalker: Opposition amendment No. 6 is not acceptable to the Government. We have made it clear repeatedly that we regard the powers of direction very much as reserve powers. We would much prefer to proceed by agreement, and we are confident that that will be possible. Since Second Reading a great deal of progress has been made on setting a new financial target and on taking forward work on separate accounts and on ideas for property development. That is ample evidence of the progress.
Nevertheless, we believe that the reserve powers provided in clause 3 are necessary. It is quite usual, and entirely proper, for a Government to take the powers that they need to secure the implementation of their policy, as approved by Parliament when a Bill is enacted. There are many other examples of such powers being taken—some of them in the very Acts that principally govern the activities of the National Bus Company. Hon. Members know them.
I am advised that those existing powers could not be used to secure the introduction of private capital into the NBC, since they were not enacted with that purpose in mind. But it is a clear illustration that the powers in clause 3 are far from new or revolutionary.
Moreover, the powers in clause 3 provide that the Secretary of State must consult the bus company before giving it any direction to exercise its powers under sections 1 and 2 of the Bill. So the NBC will have a formal opportunity—as well, no doubt, as many informal opportunities—to make representations about a proposed direction.
We have also tabled an amendment to the clause to provide that, before giving a direction, the Secretary of State must consult any county council in whose area a subsidiary covered by the proposed direction provides local bus services.
Therefore, we have added three further safeguards in amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 to fulfil the undertakings that I gave to the Opposition in Committee. We have made absolutely clear that we want to get the consultation right.

Since this part of the Bill was last considered, we have made substantial further progress. We have announced a new financial target for National Express and National Holidays in 1982—a contribution to the long-run unavoidable costs of £7 million. The NBC has put to us various proposals for arranging the involvement of private capital in the improvement and development of its properties. We shall look closely at those ideas. I have little doubt that we shall be able to agree amicably on a way forward.
What we have provided for in amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 is the fullest consultation, which was asked for. I am glad that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) welcomed that, because it was in response to our debates.
I regret that I do not see why we should remove from the Bill the powers of direction contained in clause 3 when they have been necessary in every other piece of legislation. I hope that the House will reject amendment No. 6 but accept amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Lady is always charming and repeats the fact that the powers under clause 3 are reserved——

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At what stage is a Back-Bench Member able to come into the debate? I tried to be called before my hon. Friend the Minister rose to speak, but I did not catch your eye. Is there any chance of my coming into the debate or am I precluded?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the House will be delighted if the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) catches my eye after the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Robert Hughes: I hesitated as I saw that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) wished to speak. I thought that he had decided not to do so. That is why I rose to respond.
The Under-Secretary of State charmingly told us that the powers in clause 3 are reserve powers and that she would prefer to proceed by agreement. I am glad that she is undertaking the consultations encompassed in amendments Nos. 7 to 9. One would have thought that, since the Government were prepared to consult widely, account would be taken of the consultations and that, if the views canvassed during the consultations were opposed to the Government's proposals, the Government would not use any power of direction. There is an inconsistency that the Government have been unable to square either in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
I understand what the Minister said about access to private capital. Although it goes against the grain—my political philosophy is against private capital—in reality if private capital is genuinely being injected into an industry to help its development on a joint capital venture basis, which is agreed between the nationalised industry, in this case the National Bus Company, and private capital, I shall not object. It squares perfectly with what I have argued about the conduct of the business being left to the board of the NBC for the best possible benefit of the passengers.
The Opposition strongly object to the powers of direction taken by the Secretary of State to override statute. At the end of the debate, we intend press amendment No.6 to a Division.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not dispute the Government's need to take powers of direction. Nevertheless, I welcome their promise of consultation with the National Bus Company before they pursue clause 3 into some practical form.
We are all aware of the delicate position of bus services, especially the rural services. I am aware of the cross-subsidisation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr, Fry) referred, between the profitable express services that are run by the NBC and the various rural services, such as those which serve my constituency.
The profits of holiday and express services provide between 10 and 12 per cent. of the subsidisation of rural operations. That being so, in any consultations with the NBC about privatisation some schemes must be worked out to ensure that the 10 to 12 per cent. comes from somewhere else if it is not to come from profits that are generated by the NBC. If that expense were to fall on the local authority, my constituents would wonder what benefit arising from privatisation had accrued to them.
If some of the services are privatised, there is a possibility that the NBC network will be damaged. It may be argued that that does not matter, so long as private services are successful and continue. But what if a private operator finds that the express service that he intended to run does not work out as successfully as he had planned? What happens if he then withdraws the service? Will there be a hole in the bus network, which is to the detriment of the passengers to whom I have referred, or have the Government some plans whereby such a hole can be repaired without undue cost?
The express services that are currently so profitable have already added so much to the NBC's revenue that it can claim that since the Transport Act 1980 it has expanded its coaching operations by 50 per cent. It is easy to imagine that that expansion would be available to other companies as well, but the 1980 Act has not brought forward a mass of private operators to run the NBC into the ground. Rather, they have stood back and waited to see what would happen.
Therefore, I support the Government's amendment to consult the NBC in the hope that that consultation will take full account, in considering any scheme, of the possibility that it might damage the existing network and, if unsuccessful, might leave us with a less good bus service than we currently possess.

11 pm

Mrs. Chalker: I apologise for not having completely responded earlier to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). He asked for two assurances, arising in part from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson).
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough asked whether the Government would take into consideration the effect of privatisation on subsidiaries. The answer to that must be "Yes". He further asked whether we would take, into account the privatisation of subsidiaries in considering transport supplementary grant. Because the transport policies and programme of an area must take into account all the factors involved, it would be impossible to draw up

the TPP without taking account of what may have occurred as a result of previous cross-subsidisation of stage coach services.
I certainly intended no discourtesy in rising before my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. I simply did not realise that he wished to speak, or I should have waited until after he had done so. I am glad that he welcomes the consultation. I understand his point about stage carriage services. If we can introduce into our bus operations private capital that will allow the overall system to be run better in the overall interests of the country, we should seek to do so and to find other ways to sort out the problems that may result with the stage carriage services.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) suggested that the Secretary of State might fail to take account of the views expressed in the consultations. That is not possible. The consultation implies a legal obligation to take account of its results. That is what is contained in amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which I hope that the House will approve.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 281.

Division No. 167]
[11.03 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dubs, Alfred


Adams, Allen
Duffy, A. E. P.


Allaun, Frank
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Alton, David
Eadie, Alex


Anderson, Donald
Eastham, Ken


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
English, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, N. (H'gey)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, John (Newton)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Field, Frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Fitch, Alan


Beith, A. J.
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ford, Ben


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Forrester, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Freud, Clement


Brown Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Callaghan,Jim(Midd't'n &amp; P)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ian
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, John


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Ted


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cohen, Stanley
Haynes, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Conlan, Bernard
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cook, Robin F.
Home Robertson, John


Cowans, Harry
Huckfield, Les


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Janner, Hon Greville


Dalyell, Tam
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Davidson, Arthur
John, Brynmor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Davis, Terry (B 'ham, Stechf'd)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kerr, Russell


Dewar, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dixon, Donald
Lamborn, Harry


Dobson, Frank
Leadbitter, Ted


Dormand, Jack
Leighton, Ronald


Douglas, Dick
Lestor, Miss Joan






Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Rooker, J. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sever, John


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Hugh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Short, Mrs Renée


McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


McKelvey, William
Silverman, Julius


McNally, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McTaggart, Robert
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Soley, Clive


Marks, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stallard, A. W.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stoddart, David


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Stott, Roger


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Strang, Gavin


Maxton, John
Straw, Jack


Maynard, Miss Joan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tilley, John


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tinn, James


Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Morton, George
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Watkins, David


Newens, Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Michael


Ogden, Eric
White, Frank R.


O'Halloran, Michael
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


O'Neill, Martin
Whitehead, Phillip


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitlock, William


Palmer, Arthur
Wigley, Dafydd


Park, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Parker, John
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Penhaligon, David
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Woodall, Alec


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Race, Reg
Wright, Sheila


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Richardson, Jo



Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
 Mr. Derek Foster.


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, Andrew


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom
Brinton, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Brotherton, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Banks, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.


Bendall, Vivian
Buck, Antony


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Budgen, Nick


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Bulmer, Esmond


Best, Keith
Burden, Sir Frederick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butcher John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Blackbum, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blaker, Peter
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Body, Richard
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney





Churchill, W. S.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clegg, Sir Walter
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Cockeram, Eric
Knight, Mrs Jill


Cope, John
Knox, David


Cormack, Patrick
Lang, Ian


Corrie, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Costain, Sir Albert
Latham, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Lawrence, Ivan


Critchley, Julian
Lee, John


Crouch, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dover, Denshore
Loveridge, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Luce, Richard


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lyell, Nicholas


Durant, Tony
McCrindle, Robert


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil


Eggar, Tim
MacGregor, John


Elliott, Sir William
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Emery, Sir Peter
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McQuarrie, Albert


Farr John
Madel, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Major, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Marland, Paul


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marlow, Antony


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fox, Marcus
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mawby, Ray


Fry, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mellor, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Gow, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus


Greenway, Harry
Morgan, Geraint


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Hon A.
Myles, David


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Tony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Normanton, Tom


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Heddle, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Henderson, Barry
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parris, Matthew


Hill, James
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pawsey, James


Hooson, Tom
Percival, Sir Ian


Hordern, Peter
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Pollock, Alexander


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, Barry


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.






Renton, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S 'end E)


Rhodes James, Robert
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Donald


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Thornton, Malcolm


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Townend John (Bridlington)


Rossi, Hugh
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Rost, Peter
Trippier, David


Royle, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Waddington, David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wakeham, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shepherd, Richard
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Silvester, Fred
Wall, Sir Patrick


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Skeet, T. H. H.
Ward, John


Smith, Dudley
Warren, Kenneth


Speed, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Speller, Tony
Wheeler, John


Spence, John
Whitney, Raymond


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wickenden, Keith


Sproat, Iain
Wiggin, Jerry


Squire, Robin
Wilkinson, John


Stainton, Keith
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanley, John
Wolfson, Mark


Steen, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Martin
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)



Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stokes, John
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Stradling Thomas, J.
 Carol Mather.


Tapsell, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3, line 29, leave out
'after consulting with the Bus Company'.

No. 8. in page 3, line 34, at end insert—
'(1A) Before giving a direction under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a) the Bus Company; and
(b) in the case of a direction requiring the Bus Company to exercise their powers under section 1 of this Act in relation to any of their subsidiaries, every county council in whose area that subsidiary provides bus services.'.

No. 9, in page 3, line 41, at end insert—
'(4) In this section—
bus services" has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1968;
county council" includes the Greater London Council.'.—[Mr. David Howell.]

Clause 5

PENSIONS FOR EMPLOYEES OF RELATED COMPANIES

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move amendment No. 10 in page 4, line 10, at end insert—
'(1A) In exercising with respect to any pension scheme the powers conferred by this section, the Secretary of State shall take into account any representations made by the persons administering the scheme.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 10, at end insert—
'(2) Where the Secretary of State is requested to do so by the trustees of a pension scheme of the National Bus Company or a Union or Unions with negotiating rights for members who are covered by the pension scheme, he shall use his powers under

subsection (1) of this section to make an order requiring that the terms and conditions of the pension scheme which shall be offered by the employer to whom the subsidiary of the National Bus Company is transferred shall not be less favourable than those which were provided for those employees by the National Bus Company scheme of which they were members.'.

Mrs. Chalker: The Government acknowledge in the amendment the importance that employees will attach to the establishment of satisfactory pension arrangements in a privatised subsidiary. We paid a great deal of attention to the subject in Committee. The initiative for the establishment of a suitable pension scheme will in the first instance rest with the National Bus Company. As I said in Committee, no intervention may be needed by the Government, but in case unforeseen difficulties arise the clause is intended to ensure that the Secretary of State can resolve them by making appropriate pension orders under section 74 of the Transport Act 1962. If no such difficulties arise, the power may never have to be used.
In practice, the need for pension orders is likely to be identified, first, by those administering the pension schemes. It would be unusual for a Secretary of State to take the initiative. So far as I am aware, it would be unprecedented for him to do so without consultation. However, worry was expressed in Committee that a right for the trustees to make representations should be made explicit in the Bill. That is the purpose of the amendment.
We were also pressed in Committee to amend the Bill to oblige the Secretary of State to use his order-making power in certain circumstances. We have, as I promised, given due consideration to that proposition, but we concluded that the clause should remain discretionary in line with the principal order-making power in section 74 of the Transport Act 1962. As I have said, all being well, the power may never have to be used, but by providing that the Secretary of State should take account of representations from the trustees in exercising his powers under the clause we have explicitly recognised the fact that the trustees might wish to express views on the need for an order, and we have required the Secretary of State to take account of those views.
I believe that the amendment is a reasonable compromise between two opposing points of view and one which the House will welcome.

Mr. Booth: Amendment No. 11 would ensure the statutory protection of the pensions of those who are forced to leave NBC employment by the provisions of part I, in two circumstances. The first is if the trustees of the pension fund feel that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to make an order to protect the transfer. The second is if the trade unions believe that it is necessary. Government amendment No. 10 merely requires the Secretary of State to take account of the representations of those administering the fund, who I assume are the trustees.
Under our amendment, the Secretary of State's order-making power to transfer, which he would use as requested, would ensure that the transfer of pensions took place on terms as favourable as those enjoyed by employees in their current NBC schemes. Unless this is done, we believe that a number of employees, particularly the older ones, could be greatly disadvantaged by having to transfer with no statutory protection, even if they can achieve an effective transfer.
We have in mind the fact that under the provisions of this part of the Bill the NBC is not a free agent. It can be


instructed, under clause 3, to carry through the transfer whether it likes it or not. Therefore, the NBC will not be able to ensure that the pension rights of its employees are protected.
Under the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, the two principal funds of the NBC have been approved by the Occupational Pensions Board. The funds can thus freeze the pension of anyone leaving after five or more years of pensionable service in the NBC. Even for those this can be a poor alternative to continuing in an NBC index-linked pension scheme. The transfer will be difficult anyway. There are various complications, which I shall not enter into tonight. If it is at the mercy of a company to which the NBC is forced to sell a subsidiary, that will make it impossible to protect certain of the pension rights.
There is no evidence that any company buying an NBC subsidiary will maintain the pension rights of the employees whom it takes over, unless there is an initial order made by the Secretary of State requiring it to do so. Therefore, we fear that the employees' contracts of employment and pension rights will be lost or broken.
While we understand our argument with the Government over whether it is in the wider public interest that the profitable parts of the NBC should be sold, we cannot understand that the Government should not go along with us and seek to protect those who, through no fault of their own, are turned out of employment in the NBC and into other companies. It is wrong for the Government to penalise the employees of the NBC in the doctrinaire pursuit of their privatisation policy. Therefore, I hope that at the appropriate time there will be a vote in favour of amendment No.11.

Mrs. Chalker: I should make it clear to the House that I understand amendment No. 11, because it is similar in content to a number of others tabled by the Opposition and debated thoroughly in Committee. I hoped that I had sufficiently explained the Government's view, but I shall have to say more on the subject.
Pension arrangements will be one of the most important matters that the bus company will have to discuss with employees' representatives during the steps leading up to the sale of a subsidiary. The NBC's task will be to work out the detailed form of any new scheme in the light of actuarial advice, bearing in mind the need to present an attractive package to potential private investors and to ensure that it is acceptable to employees. It is possible that suitable arrangements may be agreed without the need for any intervention by the Government.
We recognise that things may not go smoothly because of the unforeseen technical complexities of pensions. That is why clause 5 empowers the Secretary of State to make pension orders relating to a privatised subsidiary—in the terms of subsection (1) of a "related company".
Clause 5 essentially gives the Secretary of State a power to iron out technical difficulties and thus ease the transition from the public to the private sector. The Opposition amendment seeks to go way beyond that, because it seeks to dictate what the terms and conditions of the pension scheme of a privatised company should be. Moreover, it would allow third parties to tell the Secretary of State how to exercise his order-making power.
It is important that there should be no misunderstanding about the amendment. There is nothing in the Bill that

could affect either pensions already in payment to former NBC employees or the accrued pension rights of existing employees, whether or not they are to be transferred to the related company. The issue about which the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) spoke is whether we should lay down in the Bill the pension arrangements that would apply to future service with the new company, the extent and breadth of which we do not know. As the Opposition amendment makes clear, they believe that the Secretary of State should be obliged to make orders to impose the present structure of benefits upon the related company and its work force—for ever and a day, I suppose. We believe that the Government have no business, and should not take the power, to dictate a particular pension regime to a private company.
There is an overall statutory framework governing pension arrangements—the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. It is carefully constructed. Within that framework, and under the supervision of the Occupational Pensions Board, pension arrangements are a matter for negotiation between the company and the work force. That, in our view, is how it should remain. The Government should not have a hand in it. If the right hon. Gentleman presses amendment No. 11 to a vote, I shall call upon the House to resist it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 11 in page 4, line 10, at end insert—
'(2) Where the Secretary of State is requested to do so by the trustees of a pension scheme of the National Bus Company or a Union or Unions with negotiating rights for members who are covered by the pension scheme, he shall use his powers under subsection (1) of this section to make an order requiring that the terms and conditions of the pension scheme which shall be offered by the employer to whom the subsidiary of the National Bus Company is transferred shall not be less favourable than those which were provided for those employees by the National Bus Company scheme of which they were members.'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 277.

Division No. 168]
[11.26 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Coleman, Donald


Adams, Allen
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Allaun, Frank
Conlan, Bernard


Alton, David
Cook, Robin F.


Anderson, Donald
Cowans, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Crowther, Stan


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Atkinson, H. (H'gey,)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Davidson, Arthur


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Dixon, Donald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dobson, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, Jack


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Douglas, Dick


Campbell, Ian
Dubs, Alfred


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Duffy, A. E. P.


Canavan, Dennis
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Eastham, Ken


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
English,Michael


Cohen,Stanley
Ennals, Rt Hon David






Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Evans, John (Newton)
Newens, Stanley


Field, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fitch, Alan
O'Halloran, Michael


Flannery, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ford, Ben
Palmer, Arthur


Forrester, John
Park, George


Foster, Derek
Parker, John


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Parry, Robert


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Penhaligon, David


Freud, Clement
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Prescott, John


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


George, Bruce
Race, Reg


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Golding, John
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Ted
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hardy, Peter
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rooker, J. W.


Haynes, Frank
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Rowlands, Ted


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Sever, John


Home Robertson, John
Sheerman, Barry


Huckfield, Les
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Short, Mrs Renée


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Janner, Hon Greville
Silverman, Julius


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


John, Brynmor
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spearing, Nigel


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spriggs, Leslie


Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stoddart, David


Lamborn, Harry
Stott, Roger


Leadbitter, Ted
Strang, Gavin


Leighton, Ronald
Straw, Jack


Lestor, Miss Joan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Dr H.(Carmarthen)


Litherland, Robert
Tilley, John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Tinn, James


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Torney, Tom


McCartney, Hugh
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, B. (Dearne V)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


McKelvey, William
Watkins, David


McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Michael


McTaggart, Robert
White, Frank R.


McWilliam, John
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Marks, Kenneth
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Whitlock, William


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs


Maxton, John
(Crosby)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Meacher, Michael
Winnick, David


Mikardo, Ian
Woodall, Alec


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woolmer, Kenneth


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wright, Sheila


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Morton, George
 Dr. Edmund Marshall.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Ancram, Michael
Banks, Robert


Arnold, Tom
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Bendall, Vivian





Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Gow, Ian


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gray, Hamish


Best, Keith
Greenway, Harry


Bevan, David Gilroy
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Grist, Ian


Blackburn, John
Grylls, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hannam, John


Bowden, Andrew
Haselhurst, Alan


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hawkins, Paul


Bright, Graham
Hayhoe, Barney


Brinton, Tim
Heddle, John


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Henderson, Barry


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hicks, Robert


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hill, James


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Buck, Antony
Hooson, Tom


Budgen, Nick
Hordern, Peter


Bulmer, Esmond
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Butcher, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Chapman, Sydney
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Churchill, W. S.
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Clegg, Sir Walter
Knox, David


Cockeram, Eric
Lang, Ian


Cope, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Corrie, John
Latham, Michael


Costain, Sir Albert
Lawrence, Ivan


Cranborne, Viscount
Lee, John


Critchley, Julian
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Crouch, David
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Loveridge, John


Dover, Denshore
Luce, Richard


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lyell, Nicholas


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
McCrindle, Robert


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, John


Eggar, Tim
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Elliott, Sir William
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Emery, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
McQuarrie, Albert


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Madel, David


Farr, John
Major, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marland, Paul


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Marlow, Antony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forman, Nigel
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mellor, David


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger


Gorst, John
Monro, Sir Hector






Montgomery, Fergus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Morgan, Geraint
Smith, Dudley


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Speed, Keith


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Speller, Tony


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Spence, John


Mudd, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Murphy, Christopher
Sproat, Iain


Myles, David
Squire, Robin


Neale, Gerrard
Stainton, Keith


Needham, Richard
Stanbrook, lvor


Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, John


Neubert, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Newton, Tony
Stevens, Martin


Normanton, Tom
Stewart A (ERenfrewshire)


Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stokes, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Tapsell, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Parris, Matthew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thompson, Donald


Pawsey, James
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Percival, Sir Ian
Thornton, Malcolm


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pink, R, Bonner
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pollock, Alexander
Trotter, Neville


Porter, Barry
Van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Proctor, K, Harvey
Viggers, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waddington, David


Rathbone, Tim
Wakeham, John


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wall, Sir Patrick


Renton, Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Watson, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wheeler, John


Roberts, M, (Cardiff NW)
Whitney, Raymond


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wickenden, Keith


Rossi, Hugh
Wiggin, Jerry


Rost, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Royle, Sir Anthony
Williams, D, (Montgomery)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


St, John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Richard
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Silvester, Fred
 Mr. Carol Mather.


Sims, Roger

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 3, at end insert—
`(c) to transfer the ex gratia payments in respect of periods of non-pensionable service to provide additional benefits to employees who are members of pension schemes other than the NBPF and the BEST scheme into contractual obligations on the related company to sustain these payments.'.
The amendment raises an entirely different issue from any that we have discussed on pensions. I hope that the Minister will accept that it does not challenge the discretion of the Secretary of State to make orders transferring pensions. It does not bite upon that part of the clause. The amendment merely adds to the list of things in subsection (6) that he can cover by order if he decides to make an order to transfer pensions. We are asking him to take a discretionary power against the possibility of a situation arising in which he will be convinced that such a power is necessary.
The purpose of the amendment is to give the Secretary of State the power, if he chooses to use it, to transfer pensions that are covered by ex gratia payments currently made by the National Bus Company into certain employees' pension funds. In the main, those employees are people who are not covered by the two principal pension funds of the National Bus Company. I understand that they are mostly people who transferred to the NBC from other public service operators, probably from London Country Bus Services Ltd. and from London Transport. Therefore, they are in a particular and special condition.
I hope that the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends and I will be satisfied that when such employees are transferred it is possible to make arrangements for them without using this power. The amendment would in no way tie the hands of the Secretary of State, and it would leave him with discretion or power, if he was dissatisfied with what happened to those covered by these ex gratia payment schemes, to transfer some of the payments that have already been paid on their behalf bythe NBC to the other employer, at the same time placing an obligation on that employer to maintain some of those transferred employees' pension rights.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall say a word about the background to the amendment.
Most NBC employees are members of one of the company's two main pension schemes, the National Bus pension fund and the bus employees superannuation trust, but some remain in old pension schemes that do not provide the same level of benefits as NBPF and BEST. It has, however, become the NBC's customary practice to provide some additional benefits under the old schemes, notwithstanding the fact that the schemes were not funded. In addition, the NBC already makes some ex gratia payments in respect of periods of non-pensionable service.
A small number of employees who benefit from the NBC's present customary practices may become employees of a subsidiary which is to be privatised. If so, their pensions will fall to be considered along with those of employees who are members of the NBPF and BEST schemes. I am sure that the NBC would wish to ensure that they received equitable treatment, as would their trade union representatives.
Let me make it quite clear that if the NBC felt that the best way of resolving matters would be to convert what are now ex gratia payments into legal obligations, it would be open to it to do so. It will be for the bus company in the first instance to determine the related company's pension arrangements, and it could build into the new scheme legal obligations to provide benefits equivalent to the ex gratia payments, if it judged that to be the best course, having regard to the interests both of employees and of potential purchasers. Under clause 5, the Secretary of State's power to make pensions orders would be available to help sort out any difficulties in winding up the customary practices.
The initiative, and the means of converting customary practices into legal obligations, would, however, rest with the NBC, and not with the Secretary of State. That, indeed, is the essential reason why we cannot accept this amendment. Unlike section 74 itself, the amendment would imply that the Secretary of State could of his own initiative make orders to convert discretionary payments into legal obligations, and impose them on a private


company. That, in our view, would be unwarranted interference with the well-established rules that govern occupational pension arrangements in the private sector.
To sum up, we are by no means opposed to the conversion of ex gratia payments into legal obligations, and we would be prepared to use the Secretary of State's order-making powers to ease the transition. But the right to determine whether such conversion should take place should rest with NBC and the private company, in negotiation with employee representatives. It is not a matter for the Government. I therefore ask the House to reject the amendment, if the right hon. Gentleman does not withdraw it. Let me make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing to prevent what he wishes to happen from happening, but it should happen at the behest of the NBC with the agreement of the employees' representatives. It should not be imposed by the Government.

Mr. Booth: Only in the rare case that the hon. Lady has mentioned of the current ex gratia payment schemes being converted into liabilities and obligations would there be a specific power covered by the Bill to make the transfer. We do not believe that that is a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. It would be far better to face the matter openly and to leave the Secretary of State with the discretion, but, for reasons that hon. Members will understand, I do not intend to press the issue further tonight. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

PRIVATE-SECTOR VEHICLE TESTING

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 11, leave out clauses 8 to 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 15, in page 6, line 12, leave out 'any person' and insert
`a single non-profit making organisation'.
No. 16, in page 6, line 15, leave out
'in the course of that business'.

Mr. Hughes: These amendments deal with private sector vehicle testing and the Government's policy that the testing stations presently run by the Department of Transport should be transferred to private enterprise.
No Government policy in recent years has been more objectively and comprehensively examined or so thoroughly rejected. The policy was first announced in late 1979 and was opposed by every organisation in the industry. The Select Committee on Transport, an all-party Committee but with a majority of Government Back-Benchers, which took evidence from a wide spectrum of opinion, unanimously recommended that the Government should change their mind. Even after the Second Reading of the Bill, the Select Committee undertook yet another examination of the problem. That step is wholly unprecedented. Having re-examined all the witnesses from the industry, with the exception of Ministers who could argue the case in Committee, the Select Committee again reached the same unanimous conclusion. From 1979 until now, no organisation has positively supported the proposals.
What justification have the Government put forward for persisting against all the advice given to them and all the consultation that has taken place? On an earlier amendment the Under-Secretary of State told us that it was inconceivable that the Secretary of State, having consulted organisations, would not carry out their policy. Here the results of all the consultations were against the Government's policy, but the Government did not take a blind bit of notice of them.
The Government say that they should not be doing what private enterprise can do. It is a pretty lame excuse for proceeding down a path that could have serious road safety implications detrimental to all road users. It is not surprising that Ministers have been unable to persuade anyone to support the policy. To hand the test centre facilities over to private enterprise is to fly in the face of all the facts and against all the history of safety in the road transport industry. The network of stations did not grow by historical accident or like Topsy. The present system arose because the ad hoc system of roadside testing in operation since 1934 was not covering all vehicles on the road.
An attempt was made to speed up the scale of roadside testing between 1963 and 1965, but everyone accepted that that could cover only a small proportion of the vehicles on the road. It became obvious that maintenance was not up to standard and there was much disquiet in all quarters. There was unanimity of view that the only way in which road safety requirements could be met was by establishing a compulsory system of annual inspection through a geographical spread to give country-wide coverage and uniform testing standards. No one can argue that the system in operation since 1968 has been other than an unqualified success and has been, in the words of the famous or infamous television advertisement,
a major contribution to road safety".
However, we cannot afford to relax the drive to enhance the standard of maintenance, and it was disturbing to learn that from 1974–75 until 1979–80 one-fifth of all vehicles presented for their annual test failed at the first examination. The vehicles were presented for examination and were not stopped at the roadside. Such a failure rate leaves much to be desired. Indeed, 9·2 per cent. of the vehicles presented for the second test also failed the examination. We are talking about 156,000 vehicles failing their first test, and 15,328 vehicles failing their second test. If people think that we should relax safety standards against that background, they are mistaken.
The figures are significant. Even under the present system, it is clear that private enterprise finds it difficult to maintain safety and maintenance standards for vehicles on the road. I am not prepared to hand over the control of testing to private enterprise. The Government will move amendments ensuring that operators cannot run test stations or inspect their own vehicles. However, there can be no margin of error or profit in road safety. Great savings cannot he made by better, more efficient or quicker methods of testing. The strange thing is that there are only one to or two rich pickings. There are 67 main testing stations and 24 auxiliary testing stations.
I know that the House is anxious to make progress. I shall not bore the House with details. However, according to the Select Committee's report, from 1969–70 to 1979–80 the stations had an accumulated deficit of about £500,000. The deficits rose from £500,000 to £2 million in 1975–76. There have been different surpluses. In 1976–77, the


surplus was almost £1 million. It rises and falls in precise relation to the amount by which the Government have increased test fees.
In no sense of the word can the business be regarded as part of the free market economy. Given the work involved, it is not a major profit maker. Only a few of the full-time stations are viable. None of the part-time stations is viable. For example, in Scotland there are 19 stations—including those that are part-time. Only the stations at Kilmarnock, Bishopbriggs and Livingston could be viable. Whether hon. Members come from the North of England, the West, or the South, they will know that test stations are not viable concerns. No one believes that it makes sense to break up the chain, leaving the Department with stations that no one wants.
In Committee, the Government conceded that they would be left with many of the stations. The Select Committee was in doubt about the issue. In paragraph 82 of its first report, the Select Committee stated:
We also accept the views of the operators' associations"—
that does not refer to those outside the business—
that if the transfer to the private sector does take place, it would be preferable for the system to be transferred as a complete unit, rather than a number of chains. We therefore recommend that the Department of Transport continues to explore the possibility of the testing station network being taken over by either Lloyd's Register, or by some other organisation of significant standing.
Having reconsidered the matter, the Select Committee specifically stated:
we have concluded that the transfer of the vehicle testing system to a single organisation or consortium is the only solution acceptable to the industry, and we believe that the Government's proposals, and the Bill, should be amended so as to preclude any alternative solution.
Amendment No. 17 covers that point.
What has happened to the so-called Lloyd's option? Apparently the Government have gone cold for some reason and are not pursuing that matter. In Committee, they admitted that things had reached such a stage that they had called in the County Bank to advise on how to privatise the 91 test stations. On 21 March, an article in the Sunday Telegraph stated:
Testing times at the County Bank. What a busy week it has been for County Bank. Its executives don't remember one like it. It has acted for MP Kent (bidding for Federated land), helped to bring about the big Saatchi &amp; Saatchi deal with Compton, assisted British Sugar's efforts to keep Berisford at bay and launched AIMs on the way to market. But, last week, it was busy on something else which has not been made public. It has been asked by the Government to privatise the 100 or so heavy goods vehicle testing stations, probably the toughest of the privatisation plans. HGV is non-profit-making; all its income comes from testing fees, and the road haulage and bus companies are going to fight if there is any suggestion that the fees should be bumped up. County has been told to get HGV off the Government's books by the end of the year. Just how it manages that will be interesting.
It will be interesting to all of us.
The Government say that that Sunday Telegraph article is over-dramatic. They have admitted that they are looking at ways of privatisation other than a comprehensive whole, against all the advice of the Select Committee.
The case for retention is quite conclusive. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the Government's attitude to the suggestion by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, which is looking at the possibility of putting together a consortium to keep the service in one whole. The case for retaining the stations as an integral whole is logically compelling.
I remind the House of the concerns expressed by Conservative Members on Second Reading as well as by hon. Members who served on the Transport Select Committee. If they follow the logic of those arguments—if they follow their convictions—they will support amendment No. 15.

Mr. David Howell: It is correct to say that the arrangements for testing public service vehicles have been discussed for some time with a view to possible improvements and developments of the service. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House about our plans and to show how we are proceeding in a pragmatic and constructive way in this important area.
I concede straight off that we have a basic prejudice in favour of seeing things done outside the Government, where that makes practical good sense, but always in the light of the requirement that the work or the service provided must be done to at least as high a standard, if not higher.
For vehicle testing we have clear aims to achieve in terms of safety standards and service to the industry. I acknowledge straight away the contribution that the present system has made to raising standards of vehicle maintenance and safety. We intend to see that the excellent qualities of the system are maintained and developed in the private sector. But we are also looking for practical improvements—I see no reason against doing that—particularly in the way in which the testing system responds to the needs of the industry that it serves.
It is against that background that we have approached this central question of who should take on the testing. That question has rightly been identified as the one that will determine the success of a private sector scheme.
There is no sense in tryng to prescribe in the abstract what sort of organisation would in theory be most suitable. Specific proposals need to be judged on their merits. I am sure that that is a perfectly fair and sensible point to put. For that reason, we were happy in Committee to accept an amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens), which now appears as clause 8(8) and (9) and which ensures that the House will be able to judge how well we have chosen before any authorisation can be made of an approved testing authority under clause 8. That is an important safeguard. It is one of many contained in part II that are designed to ensure that the new testing scheme will effectively meet the objectives that I believe we all share.
12 midnight
The aim of the Government is to adopt the arrangements that will best achieve our common objectives. We have had an open mind, which we expressed in Committee, on whether testing should be undertaken by one organisation or by several. We have been very much aware of the dangers of commercial monopoly, but we have also accepted that a non-profit-making body that is responsive to its customers would avoid those dangers.
Therefore, we were willing to take up the recommendation of the Select Committee on Transport that we should pursue the possibility of Lloyd's Register of Shipping becoming involved in testing. I know that that proposal has found favour with many hon. Members, as well as with vehicle operators in the industry. It is one of the proposals of the Select Committee on Transport. It is the final proposal in the report:


We therefore recommend that the Department of Transport continues to explore the possibility of the testing station network being taken over by Lloyd's Register or by some other organisation of significant standing.
I do not think that anyone can sustain the argument that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) advanced, that we have in some way neglected or disregarded the detailed and constructive work done by the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport. It urged that we should pursue the possibility of Lloyd's Register of Shipping becoming involved. It also mentioned the idea of an affirmative resolution before we settled the pattern. On both those fronts we have made progress.

Mr. Bagier: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Select Committee made that suggestion as a second best? The Committee's main recommendation was that the testing station network should not be privatised.

Mr. Howell: The Select Committe looked at the alternatives. That is true. However, it came to the conclusion that if the privatisation solution were to be pursued, we should develop our ideas in this area. I am glad to be able to tell the House that our discussions with Lloyd's Register have recently made good progress. I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
Earlier this month, Lloyd's Register's executive board gave its agreement in principle to a proposal that Lloyd's Register should be associated with the establishment of a new association to undertake vehicle testing. The proposal is that the association would be under the control of Lloyd's Register and would closely resemble it in constitution and operation. The relationship would be reflected in its title—it would be known as Lloyd's Register Vehicle Testing Association.
I must make it clear that a great deal of work remains to be done on that plan, and I am not yet able to tell the House that we have concluded an agreement with Lloyd's Register. However, our discussions have entered a new phase and I have every reason to believe that the detailed negotiations, which we are now beginning, will be successful. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome that development, which is in line with a number of the amendments and arguments put forward by Opposition Members.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Secretary of State elaborate briefly on the relationship between the new Lloyd's Register and the Council of Lloyd's? A Bill has just gone through the House that gives the Council of Lloyd's virtually complete immunity from suit. Will that be extended to the operation of the vehicle testing stations? If that were so, it seems to put people who have high responsibilities outside the scope of legislative common law rights.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman may be in some confusion between two different bodies, both of which happen to have the name Lloyd's but which have no relation. He is referring to Lloyd's insurance and I am referring to Lloyd's Register of Shipping, which is not connected in any way with Lloyd's insurance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured on that point.
This development means that we shall be able to transfer the testing network to a body of which the impartiality and independence are unquestioned and which has the competence and resources to provide a nationwide

service of the highest standard. With that assurance of the Government's intentions and with the numerous safeguards to which I have referred, the anxieties that have been expressed about the clause, and which were expressed before our plans had been developed as I have just described them, are unfounded and unnecessary. I hope that it is clear that we can and will establish a scheme that will preserve the impartiality and high safety standards that are rightly valued on both sides of the House.
I hope that it will be recognised that the course that we are pursuing is sensible and constructive, that it provides for the future, and that it meets our strong wish, which is the commonsense belief that such matters are better dealt with outside the Government machine. I hope that the amendments will accordingly be withdrawn.

Mr. Richard Needham: As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken the opportunity of making the necessary changes to the Bill to incorporate the feeling of the Committee. The Committee had mixed feelings. Its first report did not go against privatisation, but it stated that the case remained to be made. As the Secretary of State said, it encouraged discussions with Lloyd's Register. That has happened. I should like to register my full support for the privatisation of heavy goods vehicle testing stations.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary' of State for his answer so far. I must point out to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) that the Select Committee was quite specific. It said that
we do not consider that the Government has yet justified its contention that private operators (still to be identified) would carry out the annual testing of commercial vehicles better than the current Department of Transport testing stations.
Until the Department bring forward evidence to substantiate their contentions, we believe that the existing system of HGV testing stations should be retained. Meanwhile, the evidence leads us to recommend that within the existing system additional services to vehicle operators can and should be provided …
If the Government is nonetheless determined to press ahead with its proposals",
the Lloyd's option will come into play.
Nothing that the Secretary of State has said justifies going against the principal conclusions of the Select Committee. Nothing that he has said means that the service will be improved. Such changes as the industry wanted could have been accommodated. It is interesting to note that the industry did not want the proposed change. It was opposed, and remains opposed, to it, although it is forced to accept the Government's proposition. Lloyd's was always a second choice to keep the whole thing together.
As the Secretary of State said, the Government are in a new phase of negotiation with Lloyd's Register. The Lloyd's option is back in the negotiating system. If that is what finally emerges, we shall accept it, as it means keeping the whole system together. It is essential to have geographically uniform standards.
I cannot see why the Secretary of State will not accept amendment No. 15, which specifically states that this matter should be dealt with by a single, non-profit-making organisation. That would meet the wishes of the Select Committee and the Government's oft-stated assertions that they consult people and take account of the views expressed. If the Secretary of State will not accept the amendment, and although there is a difference in


philosophy between us, I hope that those who have read the Select Committee report will follow us into the Lobby and support amendment No. 15. In the interests of the industry, road users and safety, amendment No. 15 must be incorporated into the statute.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 15, in page 6, line 12, leave out 'any person' and insert
`a single non-profit making organisation'.—[Mr. Robert Hughes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 273.

Division No, 169]
[12, 10 am


AYES


Abse, Leo
Field, Frank


Adams, Allen
Flannery, Martin


Allaun, Frank
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Alton, David
Ford, Ben


Anderson, Donald
Forrester, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Ashton, Joe
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Atkinson, N. (H'gey)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
George, Bruce


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beith, A. J.
Golding, John


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)
Graham, Ted


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, R, C. (N'castle W)
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Buchan, Norman
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ian
Huckfield, Les


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Janner, Hon Greville


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cook, Robin F.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cowans, Harry
Kerr, Russell


Craigen, J, M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Crowther, Stan
Lamborn, Harry


Cryer, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leighton, Ronald


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McCartney, Hugh


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dewar, Donald
McElhone, Frank


Dixon, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Dormand, Jack
McTaggart, Robert


Douglas, Dick
McWilliam, John


Dubs, Alfred
Marks, Kenneth


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eastham, Ken
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Maxton, John


English, Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Meacher, Michael


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, John (Newton)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce





Miller, Dr M, S. (E Kilbride)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spriggs, Leslie


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Stallard, A. W.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stoddart, David


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stott, Roger


Newens, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, jack


O'Halloran, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Palmer, Arthur
Tilley, John


Park, George
Tinn, James


Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Penhaligon, David
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Prescott, John
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Race, Reg
Watkins, David


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Welsh, Michael


Richardson, Jo
White, Frank R.


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Whitehead, Phillip


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Whitlock, William


Rooker, J. W.
Wigley, Dafydd


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Sever, John
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Woodall, Alec


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Woolmer, Kenneth


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wright, Sheila


Silkin, Rt Hon S, C. (Dulwich)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Silverman, Julius



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Snape, Peter
 Mr. George Morton.


Soley, Clive





NOES


Adley, Robert
Butcher, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Arnold, Tom
Chalker, Mrs, Lynda


Aspinwall, Jack
Channon, Rt, Hon, Paul


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Banks, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bendall, Vivian
Cockeram, Eric


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Cope, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Corrie, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Costain, Sir Albert


Best, Keith
Cranborne, Viscount


Bevan, David Gilroy
Critchley, Julian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Crouch, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Blackburn, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.


Body, Richard
Dover, Denshore


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Andrew
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eggar, Tim


Bright, Graham
Elliott, Sir William


Brinton, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter


Brittan, Rt, Hon, Leon
Eyre, Reginald


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Farr, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Buck, Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Budgen, Nick
Forman, Nigel


Bulmer, Esmond
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fox, Marcus






Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Luce, Richard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lyell, Nicholas


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McCrindle, Robert


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Macfarlane, Neil


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacGregor, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gow, Ian
McQuarrie, Albert


Gray, Hamish
Madel, David


Greenway, Harry
Major, John


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Marland, Paul


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Marlow, Antony


Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Michael
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Gummer, John Selwyn
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Hamilton, Hon A.
Mawby, Ray


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hannam, John
Mellor, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Heddle, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Henderson, Barry
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Monro, Sir Hector


Hill, James
Montgomery, Fergus


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hooson, Tom
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Murphy, Christopher


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Myles, David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neale, Gerrard


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Needham, Richard


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Newton, Tony


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Normanton, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Onslow, Cranley


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, West)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Knight, Mrs Jill
Parris, Matthew


Knox, David
Patten, John (Oxford)


Lang, Ian
Pattie, Geoffrey


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pawsey, James


Latham, Michael
Percival, Sir Ian


Lawrence, Ivan
Pink, R, Bonner


Lee, John
Pollock, Alexander


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Porter, Barry


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Proctor, K, Harvey


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Rathbone, Tim


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Loveridge, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.





Renton, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.


Rhodes James, Robert
Tapsell, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thompson, Donald


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thornton, Malcolm


Rossi, Hugh
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rost, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
van Straubenzee, Sir W. 


St, John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. 
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Waddington, David


Shelton, William(Streatham)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Shepherd, Richard
Waller, Gary


Silvester, Fred
Ward, John


Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, T. H. H.
Watson, John


Smith, Dudley
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Speed, Keith
Wheeler, John


Speller, Tony
Whitney, Raymond


Spence, John
Wickenden, Keith


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Sproat, Iain
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Nicholas


Stainton, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanley, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Steen, Anthony



Stevens, Martin
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mr. Carol Mather.


Stokes, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee, and on recommittal), to be further considered this day.

AGRICULTURE

Ordered,
That Mr. Douglas Hogg be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Peter Temple-Morris be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ENVIRONMENT

Ordered,
That Mr. Frank Dobson be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. John Forrester and Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Mr. Glyn England

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I wish to raise the important decision made by the Secretary of State for Energy not to reappoint Mr. Glyn England to the chairmanship of the Central Electricity Generating Board. I seek to do so for two reasons. The first is the way in which an eminent power supply engineer has been treated by the Secretary of State. Secondly, there are the wider issues raised by actions that spring from the Government's general attitude to the nationally owned industries.
It would have been more in keeping with the Secretary of State's position if he had come to answer the debate. I know that it is normal practice on an Adjournment debate for a junior Minister to take the responsibility, but in these circumstances it would have been better if the Secretary of State had answered. The Secretary of State, not the Under-Secretary, sacked Mr. England.
Mr. England has not directly or indirectly asked me to raise the matter in the House. As a fellow power supply engineer, I have known him for many years. He also lives in the Bristol area. I told him of my intention to raise the matter in the House but the responsibility is mine. A week ago I put down a parliamentary question, as the Minister knows.
Last Monday I said that the case had caused great resentment in the electricity supply industry, especially among the technical staff, from whom Mr. England sprang, and the power station management in the regions. On 2 April he was called to the Secretary of State's office. I am told that he was informed in an abrupt few minutes that it was not intended to reappoint him.
About three days later the technical staff union in the industry, the Electrical Power Engineers Association—I am a long-standing member and still a member of the executive committee—was in annual conference at York. The EPEA organises the entire technical engineering and scientific staff of the industry. The case was fully debated as an emergency. Mr. John Lyons, the moderate and restrained general secretary, stated:
The treatment of Glyn England, Chairman of the CEGB, is abominable … The Secretary of State is entitled to appoint a different Chairman if he wishes to … He hasn't done that. He has not got anyone else to replace Glyn England. He has said that Glyn England is not suitable for the job, no matter that he cannot find a replacement … This is a personal snub to Glyn England and the whole of the electricity supply industry.
Why was Mr. England dismissed? Let us not have humbug about the phrase. The Secretary of State said that his five-year term had come to an end and not been renewed. What a smooth explanation!Last Monday I said that he had virtually been dismissed. The following day The Daily Telegraph, which is hardly an extremist newspaper, was much more blunt. A headline referred to the "sacked power chief'. That was the general reaction of the press, including the more serious newspapers.
Mr. England's promotion to the CEGB chairmanship was the culmination of a long and varied career as an engineering manager in public electricity supply following his war service. His was a career appointment. That is significant. At the age of 60 he is at the height of his powers. Had he not the ill fortune to have accepted a board appointment in the gift of a Minister, he would have gone

on to the standard retiring age of 65. He would have drawn his full contributed pension. As it is, he is to go out, as I understand it, with a reduced pension. The Under-Secretary shakes his head, and I should be glad to hear from him on that point. Mr. England was of that view. He is to go out, apparently, with a pension reduced by five contributory years. What a way to treat a loyal servant of this industry.
If Mr. England had worked for a large private company—it would have to be a monster private company with a massive investment to equal that of the CEGB on an annual basis—as the managing director who had been displaced, he would have received what is known as a golden, or perhaps a diamond, handshake.
To return to my question: why was Glyn England dismissed? It could hardly be because of poor CEGB performance. At a time of static demand for electricity, the board has managed to cut its costs and increase operating profits. In the financial year that has just ended it is expected to make an operating profit of £320 million. That is £80 million above expectations and £130 million above last year.
An investigation that I thought was unnecessary was carried out somewhat spitefully by the Government through the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the affairs of the CEGB. The commission, after the most searching of investigations, which took up an enormous amount of the time of the industry's busy staff, concluded that the board was run very efficiently.
Was Mr. England dismissed because of the advice tendered to the Secretary of State from others outside? I cannot answer that question but the Under-Secretary could if he wished. At his press conference, Mr. England said that two criticisms had been mentioned to him. One was that private industrialists distrusted the CEGB. Which private industrialist? Was it Lord Weinstock of the General Electric Company, a major supplier of plant and equipment to the board, who has been notoriously at war with the CEGB for years? If that were the case, the whole of the board should have been censured. But all the other members have been reappointed. Only Mr. England is the scapegoat.
The other criticism that Mr. England said had been made to him from outside was that departmental officials had complained of a lack of information made available to them by the CEGB. On this charge, I understand that Mr. England,—and I do not blame him—has written to Sir Donald Maitland, the permanent secretary of the Department, as Mr. England claims that the charge is entirely untrue.
With regard to advice from outside—and this is my question, not that of Mr. England—was the view of the Electricity Council and its chairman sought? After all, one of the duties of the Electricity Council is to advise the Minister. Did the advice of the Electricity Council play a part in the downfall of Mr. England? I doubt whether I shall receive any answers to these pertinent points. I do not think that the Under-Secretary would dare to answer them.
Therefore, I am driven back to the commonly accepted political explanation, which is that the former chairman of the CEGB spoke out of turn too often. This is a characteristic that Glyn England has shared with Sir Denis Rooke, chairman of the British Gas Corporation. Denis Rooke has complained from time to time about his treatment from Ministers but he is perhaps too big a fish


to throw out. The unions in the gas industry have demonstrated their power over the proposed closure of gas showrooms, now abandoned.
I have talked about Mr. England speaking out of turn. I shall quote from a fully justified speech that he made this year to his staff at Leatherhead. The speech was widely reported. I am sure that it was read with great irritation by the Secretary of State. I shall quote from Power News for convenience, although the speech was reported in all the newspapers. Mr. England said:
Why then do responsible people make generalised criticisms of public sector enterprises, ignoring the substantial differences between them? There is a tendency, which I find regrettable, to use the public sector in general as the whipping-boy for the nation's present economic difficulties. It is not surprising if there is a feeling among staff that, however hard they work, however well they face challenging times, they can, in the eyes of some Ministers, never get it right, simply because they work in a public enterprise.
According to Power News, Mr. England went on to say that, to counter this, he regarded it as part of his job to speak out when he considered that Ministers were being less than fair to the generating board and its staff.
There is insufficient time and it would not be appropriate tonight for me to discuss the difficult question of the proper and efficient relationship that should exist between nationally owned industries and their sponsoring Ministers. It has been written about, debated, and argued about for many years. For myself, I lean towards the original Morrisonian concept that the public corporations should run their own affairs within the terms of their statutes, balancing one year with another financially. If Ministers find it necessary to intervene in policies, they must do so openly and take responsibility at first hand.
Mr. Glyn England gave several examples of the present Government violating this principle—for instance, over coal prices. These prices were increased to the CEGB last year because the Government reached agreement with the National Coal Board and the miners—they were anxious to avert a mining stoppage—on imports of coal and on certain diseconomies, if you like, which meant that some pits would be kept open that it had previously been intended should close. The effect was to push up the price of coal to the generating board, which was not even consulted. Following an investigation of the matter, the Select Committee on Energy has made trenchant criticisms on this point.
Mr. England had to speak his mind, as he saw it, on behalf of his industry and suffered accordingly. To sum up, first, Mr. England was personally shabbily treated by the Secretary of State. Secondly, Ministers should not be so sensitive to public criticisms of their policies by board chairmen, who are not, after all, civil servants.
Thirdly, if board careers are in future to be cut short to suit the political doctrines of Ministers, able employees will be chary of going on to the boards. At one time, to be a member of the board was regarded as the pinnacle of a successful career in the industry. Employees will not be so ready to do so in future if the present Secretary of State continues his activities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Mellor): I should like, first, to say to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) sincerely, as I think he knows, that his knowledge of and commitment to the electricity supply industry are well known and

respected throughout the House. He served for many years as a power engineer. He still keeps close contacts within the industry. His support for a number of important policies, most notably the nuclear power programme, is welcome to us.
I regret that the hon. Gentleman should feel so dismayed about this matter that he has raised it on the Adjournment in the terms that he has. I am sorry that on this occasion I shall not be able to agree with many of the points that he made. The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of interesting issues. The nationalised industries comprise a significant part of the economic activity of this country. The quality of leadership of these industries is of first importance. Thus, whenever the period of appointment of a chairman reaches its conclusion, it must be right to consider carefully what would be best for the industry in question.
I wish to make it clear that Mr. England's appointment has come to an end after the normal period of five years. Mr. England, who is now 60 years of age, was not dismissed or sacked. Rather, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has the statutory responsibility for board appointments in the electricity supply industry, decided, after careful consideration, that it was time to make a change.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. England has a record of long and distinguished service to the industry. My right hon. Friend has written to him in appreciation. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. It has therefore become, in effect, a public document and it would be perhaps proper for me to quote that letter in full tonight. In the letter, my right hon. Friend said:
I told you at our recent meeting that I had decided it was time for a change in the chairmanship of the CEGB, and in consequence I would not be asking you to serve for a further term at expiry of your present appointment. I am now writing to confirm this and to take the opportunity of placing on record, both for myself and on behalf of my predecessors, appreciation of your long and distinguished service to the electricity supply industry. I send you my best wishes for the future.
It would be wrong to suggest that Mr. England has not been reappointed because of any particular failing. On the contrary, the Secretary of State's judgment reflects the view—as he says in the letter—that the time has come for change, and in particular for an appointment from outside the electricity supply industry.
I should like to dilate for a moment on the statutory basis for the appointment of senior management in the light of one or two of the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised. Appointments at the top of the electricity supply industry are within the gift of the Secretary of State. Top officials are given a contract for a term certain. That term expires by effluxion of time. It is then entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend, who has unfettered discretion, whether to reappoint or not. Refusal to offer a new term is not a dismissal. Therefore, there is no requirement in law or in equity for the Secretary of State to give reasons—certainly not to put forward or substantiate criticisms or allegations of shortcomings on the part of someone who has not been reappointed. It would be invidious if the situation were to be otherwise. The Secretary of State's job in discharging his statutory obligation is already difficult and it would make his task even more difficult. It would hardly be advantageous for the individual concerned if a discussion were to be embarked upon on why he was not reappointed or why, if he were reappointed, a particular period was chosen.


The hon. Gentleman will be aware that reappointments are for differing periods and that they are sometimes well short of five years.

Mr. Palmer: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but this was a career appointment. It was not somebody coming in from outside who served five years and went. This was cutting Mr. England's career short.

Mr. Mellor: I was dealing with that. But the appointment is for a term certain of five years. That is in the statute for the apparent reason that the Secretary of State is to be given powers to decide at that period whether to make a reappointment. He is only exercising the statutory powers that Parliament in its wisdom many years ago chose to confer on him, and which have been used in a number of instances to reappoint or not under successive Governments.
If would be invidious to give details, and wrong to do so, but any such discussions would be unfair to the many individuals and groups within and without the industry who feel it right to give the Secretary of State their views on appointment and reappointment issues. Those views must remain confidential.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about responsibility. The Secretary of State has taken this decision and takes the responsibility for it, as we all do as Ministers in the Department in defending ourselves against what has been said by the hon. Gentleman and by some others. It is worth remarking that we have not for a moment made any allegations or imputations. We rest on the basis that is set out in my remarks and has been set out in the Secretary of State's letter. As I have already made clear, my right hon. Friend believes, first, that it was time for change at the top of the CEGB and, secondly—this is his considered judgment, which he is fully entitled to arrive at—that it would be best for someone outside the industry to take on the chairmanship of the board at this time.

Mr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman suppose that in the electricity supply industry there is no one capable of taking this position?

Mr. Mellor: That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the Secretary of State takes the view—I must stress that other Governments have done so, including those supported by the hon. Gentleman—that at a certain stage there is virtue in bringing in someone from outside. That is a perfectly honourable decision. There may be room for dispute about it, but it is not a dishonourable decision or one that is necessarily motivated by anything improper or by any desire to do down the industry. It was in this instance the result of a genuine assessment, which we believe in the fulness of time will be shown to be right.
The decision was entirely within my right hon. Friend's competence and entirely within the statutory framework. If it had been intended, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that senior executives in the industry should be entitled to stay on until choosing to retire, until the age of 65 or for life, the Secretary of State would hardly have been given the power to appoint for term certain in the first place. The opportunity to review, reconsider and bring in new blood is fundamental to the way in which the legislation is framed. Inherent in it is the right of the Secretary of State to decide, with the minimum of fuss, not to reappoint if that be his considered view.
There is, therefore, no reason for anyone to suggest that my right hon. Friend has done anything outlandish in exercising his powers in the way that he has. Nor is there any reason for Mr. England or anyone on his behalf to feel discomfited. The letter that I quoted paid a warm tribute to him. He has held high office in the industry for many years, culminating in five years as chairman of the CEGB. That is a longer period in one top job than many people enjoy, particularly many who hold high office in politics. He has had a good opportunity to make his mark in the industry and on the board, and his efforts are appreciated. For all of us, whatever job we hold, there is a time to come in and a time to go out. In many ways, I feel that this situation might be best left at that.
Allegations have been bandied about in some sections of the press and elsewhere as if to suggest that the Government are pursuing some kind of vendetta against senior figures in the industry or that we are intent on filling this top job with a political hack, so perhaps I should say a little more in this respect.
First, both my right hon. Friend and his predecessor paid considerable attention to appointments in the industry. We are aware of the need for continuity at the top of the industry. Anyone who looks at the pattern of reappointments to the electricity supply industry under this Government will find little evidence to support an accusation that the Government were inclined, for one reason or another, not to reappoint senior and leading figures within the industry. The chairman of the Electricity Council, Mr. Bunch, a man who has devoted his life to the industry, was reappointed by my right hon. Friend until his retiring age, which comes up next year. Nor should it be forgotten that the three other CEGB board members, whose appointments expired this year, have been reappointed—Mr. Bonner, the long-serving deputy chairman, Mr. Lomer, the effective and respected board member with responsibility for construction, and Mr. Blackman, the member with responsibility for operations. The same applies to a whole host of area board chairmen and deputy chairmen.
There is the allegation that the new chairman might or will be a political appointment. I am not in a position to say tonight who the new chairman will be. However, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that while there are a number of distinguished executives within the board, he believes that the time is right to look further afield for a new chairman. There should be real advantage in having a new man who will bring a fresh impetus and give a strong lead in achieving the highest possible standards of efficiency, for the benefit of domestic and industrial consumers alike.
My right hon. Friend will announce the name of the new chairman as soon as possible—I hope in the very near future. I assure the House that this will not be any kind of narrow political appointment. Put simply, the man appointed will be the best available for the job. I believe that his qualifications and distinction will be such that only a narrow partisan, far removed from the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East, could quibble. I feel confident that when the name is announced the hon. Gentleman will not be displeased.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to One o'clock.